There has been a relative explosion of research and articles on Workplace Violence throughout the world within the past ten years (particularly in the past five years). In 2002, the International Labor Organization found that ‘‘violence or harassment at work is being converted into a worldwide problem which crosses work, and professional group, frontiers.’’ A 2010 poll by Reuters/IPSOS found that worldwide, 7% of workers had experienced actual physical assault – in a survey that reportedly only looked at assaults “made out of anger”. 

The evidence is clear that no continent and no country is immune to this phenomena of aggression in the workplace, and it appears to be significantly escalating, for whatever reason. Concomitantly, there has been increasing awareness and attention to this, with accompanying oversight and legislation, but this varies and is rarely at a sufficient level, at least up to this point.

For more information, please see our newsletter that will be soon posted on our website: www.criticalresponseassociates.com

In our most recent newsletter (September, 2011), we discussed what we have identified as the 4^th most common mistake leading to Workplace Violence.

This involves the very human tendency to proceed prematurely when taking employment action against an identified high-risk employee. Terminating someone’s employment is of course never an easy task for any manager.  But there are certain employees who raise special concerns, beyond the ordinary – concerns that this employee will react in an inappropriate, rageful or retaliatory matter – or that the employee may be at risk to him- or herself. 

There may be concerns not just about the employee’s immediate reaction; there may be fears that this individual may have the means, personality, and motivation to plan and carry out an act of revenge.  Indeed, many acts of workplace violence occur months, or even years, after a termination.

Critical Response Associates (CRA) recommends a five-step process before the initiating any type of termination process with a potentially high-risk employee.  The first step is to hit the pause button. As simple as it sounds, this is probably the most important step.

If you act too quickly without considering the consequences and without planning the termination and post-termination process very carefully, then you can quickly reach a point of no return. We have many potential options available to us prior to the termination – many of which will be revealed during the assessment process, but our ability to control and assess is significantly reduced.

For more about our recommendations and guidelines concerning this process, please visit our website to download our workplace violence newsletter.

Marc McElhaney, Ph.D.

Canadian Workplace Violence Legislation

Ontario became the seventh province in Canada to enact significant Workplace Violence legislation, when it passed Bill 168, which went into effect approximately one year ago. Canada’s various provinces have acted to go beyond Federal legislation to place liability squarely on the employer for failure to properly mitigate and investigate incidents of workplace violence.

This is relevant not only for our clients with Canadian facilities, but also because we believe this represents a trend that will be witnessed increasingly in other countries, including the United States.

Ontario’s legislation even includes a right to refuse work clause that states that an employee can refuse to work if he or she feels threatened.

Due to several calls within the past year or so about this and other legislation in the Canadian provinces, we addressed this issue in this month’s newsletter. In addition, we have recently partnered with the Toronto-based AFI International Group and its affiliates to help companies more comprehensively address various aspects of this legislation, including organizational risk assessment, policy development and program implementation.

 To review this and other newsletters about workplace violence, or to subscribe, please visit our website.

Workplace Violence Mistake #3

Our recent newsletter discussed #3 of what we have identified as the “5 Most Common Mistakes” that lead to Workplace Violence.

Whenever an unprepared organization is asked what they would do in the face of a potentially violent  or high-risk incident, a common response is “well, we’ll just call the police”, or maybe, “we’ll just refer him to the EAP program.”

At the basis of this is sometimes the belief that managing Workplace Violence is solely a “security management problem” – the belief that this is just a matter of walking someone out the door or having some kind of armed presence in front of your office for a couple of days.

I am certainly not implying at all that law enforcement and mental health should not be involved; in fact, they frequently represent a very critical part of the threat management plans that we develop in response to threatening situations. However, neither response represents a sole, stop-gap measure that a company can routinely rely upon.

The third most prevalent oversight is Not Having a Threat Response Program or Team in place. There is no routine, stop-gap response that applies to all potential threats. In all situations involving a threat of violence, it is critical that any action (or inaction) be considered in light of the possible consequences, both positive and negative. 

The first thing that has to happen when someone reports a potentially threatening set of circumstances is to make certain that this information is quickly and effectively routed to the individual, or individuals, within the company who are responsible for the company’s response. This team should be trained so that they understand their responsibilities and the basics of initiating a safe and effective Threat Response Plan.

 Please refer to our newsletter on our website for a more expanded discussion of mistakes that lead to workplace violence and other topics.

 In our latest newsletter, we continued with the 2^nd in our list of The Five Most Common Mistakes and Oversights That Lead To Workplace Violence: Managers Not Attending to Aberrant Behavior.

Many of the more well-known incidences involving workplace violence have included observations by co-workers or managers that the individual had began coming into work disheveled, dressed inappropriately, or engaging in inappropriate social behavior, sometimes as minor as being irritable or reclusive toward others. 

 An important part of any kind of workplace violence prevention program includes the tenant that managers need to know their employees and to not ignore aberrant behaviors. When we conduct our training for managers in workplace violence prevention, we emphasize the simple phrase: “Know your employees” as a key ingredient.

 There have been many actual incidences of workplace violence, in which subsequent questioning revealed that before the perpetrator began exhibiting identifiable warning signs, there already existed a rather pervasive (but sometimes vague) concern about this individual among the other employees or managers.

 These “gut feelings” may or may not mean anything, but they are often worthy of our attention. There is no downside to simply paying attention to our employees and checking in with them when we notice unusual behaviors. At the end of the day, it communicates a caring level of attention that most employees appreciate.

 For the full text of this article, it will be posted on our website the first week of February.

This training will be for human resource professionals, attorneys, security professionals, and all managers and supervisors who are involved in the decision-making process for their organization in this area of concern, and will feature several guest speakers from various specialties.

Our first workshop will occur Atlanta, GA on May 26th , and will take place in the Atlantic Station complex just north of downtown and will be hosted by the labor & employment law firm of Ford & Harrison. A second workshop will occur in Houston, Texas during the latter part of June. We should have that date confirmed within a couple of weeks.

In total, we will be delivering this workshop in 6 cities during the year. Details will be forthcoming. We will be emailing notices and registration forms out to everyone on our newsletter list by the middle of February. Please contact us for details.

Marc McElhaney, Ph.D. 

1. Overuse of Denial, Delays, and Avoidance

2. Managers Not Attending to Aberrant Behaviors

3. Not Having a Threat Response Plan and Team in Place

4. Acting Too Hastily (Not Preparing for Critical Events)

5.  Lack of Employee Support and Participation

In the December edition of our newsletter, we begin addressing the most common mistakes that lead to workplace violence, with this issue being about the first one. 

When faced with the specter of potentially negative consequences that either we do not want to confront or that simply overwhelm us, we human beings have the ability to protect ourselves from this discomfort through the use of our most primary defense mechanism: Denial and/or Avoidance. Many risks that we deal with on a daily basis will go away on their own, or prove to be of no consequence. But a potential risk of violent behavior in the workplace will not just go away, and the risk will likely escalate if left alone. In this issue, we discuss the necessity of the organization committing to a culture in which each and every employee understands their obligations when encountering inappropriate or potentially high-risk behaviors.

To view this article, and our newsletter in full, it will be posted shortly on our website. Or you can contact me at mmcelhaney@craorg.com.

Marc McElhaney, Ph.D.

In the 2007 Virginia Tech Review Panel’s report, there was a statement that rings true for anyone who is experienced in the area of workplace violence: “[although many had bits of information], no one had all the information and no one connected the dots."

 In our newsletter this month, we discuss the importance of employee training programs as a critical element of any successful Workplace Violence Primary Prevention Program.

The training process is especially critical in this area, in that it has to counteract the very human tendency toward denial, delay and avoidance that we see every day. As we have mentioned many times in the past, the cases with which we deal have rarely somehow just sprung into being. We always have uncovered a history of critical “red flags” that could have alerted us much sooner in the process.

Employees truly represent the company’s front line of defense. Without their participation, without their knowledge, and without their attention, we cannot prevent workplace violence.

Given that, the company needs to conduct an active campaign to promote and encourage employee participation. If the employees believe that their employer is serious about this, that there is a program there to protect them, that it will be administered in a fair and confidential manner, they are much more likely to become part of the process. This has to be communicated effectively.

Much of this can be accomplished through Employee Awareness Programs. A video or web-based program can suffice, but generally needs to be coupled with an interactive component from management to help focus the employees’ attention and emphasize management’s commitment. 

I recently was asked by a client to review the recently mandated amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act that recently went into effect in Ontario, Canada, and how the new legislation could affect their facilities there. The reason I am addressing this issue at all is not because of Ontario’s specific legislation, but rather that may be a good representation of what’s to come for other governments within and outside the United States regarding this particular issue. 

There has been an increased awareness of workplace violence, along with increased attention to the obligations that companies have in regards to their workers regarding this issue. In essence, this legislation addresses both workplace violence and “workplace harassment” which is generally defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workforce that is known or ought to be reasonably known to be unwelcomed”. 

Employers are going to be required under this law to develop written policies in respect to both workplace violence and workplace harassment and must review those policies at least once a year.  Employers must also develop and maintain programs to implement the policies and to deal with incidents and complaints of workplace violence and harassment.  The employer must also assess the risk of violence that are specific to any and all of their facilities, not just globally. 

This program must also include measures and procedures to control the risk identified in the assessment, along with measures and procedures for summoning immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs.  Additionally, the employer must be aware of any issues of domestic violence and must take reasonable precaution to protect workers in that case. 

Finally, the employer is obligated to advise a worker of the existence of any potential or actual danger to the health or safety of the worker of which the employer is aware, and further, that “workers have the right to refuse to work if workplace violence is likely to endanger the worker in their perception”.

This is very thorough and specific legislation that Canada is utilizing more widely and which I believe will gradually become more widely expected in the relatively near future.

For more information about this law, go to: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/wpvh/index.php