RISKVUE ARCHIVE | INDUSTRY WATCH > WORKERS' COMP

The What And Why Of Workplace Violence

There may be as many reasons for violent behavior as there are types of people, thus making predicting and preventing it difficult. However, knowing the major types of violence and having a basic understanding of the perpetrator’s underlying thought processes for each may give employers a place to start.

Types of Violence

The types of violence discussed below include violence by employees versus everyone else, domestic violence, stress-related violence, and violence accompanying mental illness.

Violence by Insiders vs. Outsiders

One distinction that can be made is violence committed by employees as opposed to everyone else. Employees who commit workplace violence almost always were known beforehand by their co-workers and immediate supervisor as “troubled” employees. What made them troubled took the form of dramatic mood swings; an explosive temperament; a substance abuse problem; a history of personal violence, such as getting into fights or being abusive to a spouse; or being thought of as “weird” and a loner. Typically, the employee had been escalating in abusive behavior and comments prior to actually committing the violent act. In many cases, the employee had actually told someone what he or she intended to do.

When the perpetrator is from outside the company, there are typically no warning signs for the violent act because little is known about the perpetrator. Even if something is known or suspected prior to the violence, the company has little or no leverage in dealing with this type of perpetrator, other than to increase security. There is no unequivocal evidence that restraining orders and other legal actions will decrease the risk of violence by outsiders, especially in instances of stalking.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence by a spouse or other live-in relation of an employee can carry over into the workplace. Even though the particular employee is the target of the perpetrator’s rage, others may be incidentally or purposefully injured as well. There is usually no foreknowledge of this type of attack, unless the employee has made his or her ongoing battering known to a trusted supervisor or co-worker and the employee decides to leave the abusive relationship. Beyond providing the targeted employee with the same level of safety as the other employees — such as a well-lit and secure parking lot and building — the employee can be escorted to his or her vehicle in the evening and the phone extensions and workstations moved around periodically.

Domestic violence can also affect the workplace when the perpetrator becomes delusional and believes that a supervisor or a co-worker is the cause of his or her lack of marital bliss and needs to be “taken care of.” This type of domestic violence, in which the employee typically has some foreknowledge of the perpetrator’s threats, should prompt increased security. Whoever is providing the security (e.g., a security service, a front-desk manager) should have a photograph of the threatening person.

Stress-Related Violence

A common psychological reason for some perpetrators of violence is to relieve built-up stress. They feel that they have been “pushed to their limit” and are convinced that violence is the only option. Commonly, violent employees will have developed their rage from many sources, but will focus all of it on the company since this is where they spend the greatest portion of their time. The rage may be even more narrowly focused on a supervisor or co-worker as a result of close working conditions or feelings of jealousy or bitterness. Sometimes the basis for the rage may be justified, but more often it is delusional — the company, supervisor, or co-worker having become the symbol for everything that makes the perpetrator unhappy. With any person’s increased lack of hold on reality, the risk of violence increases. Paranoid delusions present the most serious risk of violence. Risk managers should keep in mind that people do not need a major psychiatric illness to become delusional during periods of severe stress.

Violence and Mental Illness

Statistically, the presence of mental illness of any kind increases a person’s risk of committing violence. However, there is a vast difference between someone who is hallucinating from schizophrenia or drug use and someone who is depressed or anxious because of stressful life events. Severely depressed employees are at high risk of violence because they no longer value their own life and may be less hesitant to sacrifice it. On the other hand, there are many employees with depression for whom the idea of violence is repugnant and who don’t even have the energy to consider any type of action. There are also many people with antisocial personality or some of its traits who, by definition, have no regard for others. They may actually be more dangerous than someone with a major mental illness because of their flagrant disregard for societal rules.

If a potentially threatening employee has made his or her psychiatric illness known to the employer in the past, there is an opening to discuss the situation with the employee, but there may also be increased potential liability as a result. Should the employee become violent in the workplace in the future, any victims would charge the employer with negligent supervision for having failed to take the appropriate steps to prevent the violence after having known about the employee’s proclivities. Alternatively, the mentally ill employee may be offended by the employer’s broaching of the subject and may consider any employment decision against him in the future to be the result of the employer’s unsubstantiated fears about the employee’s alleged violent tendencies.

Diminishing the Likelihood of Violence

While prevention of workplace violence would obviate the need for managing the resulting disability and other types of claims, most companies do not feel the need to expend the resources to establish a violence-prevention program. Even if they did feel the need, little objective research has been done to support the effectiveness of violence-prevention programs. Even so-called experts have proven themselves notoriously poor forecasters of violence. Moreover, if the violence is forecasted, any preventative action is limited by the law. However, there are steps that employers can and should take. Employers can know the demographics, risk factors, and early warning signs of violence; establish an emphatic policy against violence; assemble a threat assessment team; and draw on health-care and legal resources in the community.

Knowing the Demographics, Risk Factors, and Early Warning Signs

The inability to determine who will or will not commit violence frequently results from a lack of information — or a prevalence of misinformation. Predicting violence is essentially based on screening the situation and the potentially violent employee for a similarity in demographics, the presence of risk factors, and any indication of the early warning signs of violent behavior. While there is no accurate formula or threshold, an increase in the number of risk factors spells an increased risk and should be treated accordingly.

Developing an Antiviolence Program

The first step to developing an antiviolence program is to create a written policy against violence that is distributed to all employees and job applicants. The policy should be tailored to the company’s needs but, in general, should state that no form of violence is acceptable and that termination may result from any violence committed in the course of employment.

Next, the company should assemble a Threat Assessment Team (TAT) or, if more broadly conceived, a Crisis Management Team (CMT). Team members should consist of representatives from upper management, human resources, risk management, workers compensation, disability management, safety, health (such as a nurse case manager), security, and possibly public relations. The team should be responsible for educating managers and employees about the demographics, risk factors, and early warning sign of violence. The team should also create procedures for reporting actual and potential violence and for documenting the steps taken to address these reports. The team may even consider dedicating a telephone line for reporting incidences of violence or threats of violence. Such a hotline should only be established after the Threat Assessment Team has determined a feasible system for addressing the complaints.

Drawing on Outside Resources

Frequently, a health-care or anger-management expert can be used for consultation about a particular situation or person. If there is documented or objective evidence of an employee’s inappropriate behavior, the employee can be required to attend a fitness for duty evaluation. Although the evaluation should be termed a “Fitness for Duty Evaluation” (pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act), the assessor could be focusing on the employee’s potential for violence. A psychiatrist or psychologist with expertise in assessing potentially violent people should do these evaluations.

In the event that the evidence for potential violence is undocumented and subjective, the employee could still be referred for a fitness for duty evaluation, but there is an increased risk of liability if the employee maintains that there has been no inappropriate behavior and that the referral is mere harassment. If the threat or behavior in question is minor, often a referral to an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) will be sufficient to aid the employee and defuse any potential violence.

Because peoples’ jobs and overall safety are at stake, risk managers should be aware that employees and job applicants won’t hesitate to get the legal system involved should the employer err on the side of being overprotective (e.g., refusing to hire anyone with a history of depression) or underprotective (e.g., ignoring an emotionally explosive employee who regularly bullies other employees). Therefore, employers should also not hesitate in consulting with legal counsel when faced with having to balance one person’s job interests against the other employees’ right to safe working conditions. Legal issues that often arise are liability for negligent hiring, training, or supervision; defamation; wrongful discharge; and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Taking All Threats Seriously

An employee who commits or threatens violence of any kind should be held accountable. Even easily said threats such as, “I wish you were all dead,” or a personal altercation between co-workers should be addressed by supervisors. In instances of more serious threats or acts of violence, where termination is eventually the final decision, employers should aim to resolve the underlying conflict prior to terminating the employee or employees involved. Once an employee has been terminated, the employer loses all leverage for resolving the conflict and may still be forced to deal with a potentially dangerous person who is even more angry and dangerous now that he or she has been terminated.

Securing The Workplace

As unpredictable as violence may be, employers are charged with taking the counteroffensive to prevent violence in the workplace. No longer can we afford to think of violence as an inevitable part of living and working. Workers compensation and other disability management professionals must be aware of the measures that can be taken to limit the risk and effect of violence and be assertive in implementing these measures.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Journal of Workers Compensation is a quarterly review of risk management and cost containment strategies published by Standard Publishing in Boston, Massachusetts. For more information, please visit our web site, www.standardpublishingcorp.com, or contact the editor at 800-682-5759, extension 222, or subscription services at extension 228.

riskVue | The webzine for risk management profesionals
February 2001