August 1994

Violence in the American workplace is not a new phenomenon. We have always had more than our fair share of armed robberies in commercial establishments, acts of terrorism directed at businesses, and violence targeting the police. However, what used to be fistfights and harsh verbal abuse in our offices, factories and schools; has escalated dramatically in recent years. Now this violence often includes homicide, sexual assault, arson, extortion and kidnaping. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Center for Disease Control, homicide is the leading cause of death among females in the workplace. It is the third leading cause of death among males after machine accidents and traffic fatalities.

In 1992 more than 1,000 people were murdered at work. To make matters worse, homicides that occur in unusual places, such as a noncommercial workplace or school, naturally attract media attention. Regrettably, this only increases the likelihood that emotionally upset workers, criminals, students and the mentally disturbed will conceive of ideas for retribution and criminality that they may not have otherwise. The media, of course, disclaim any responsibility for their over emphasis on violence, hiding behind their undeniable First Amendment rights. Unfortunately, a few hundred people die needlessly each year, because of the media's desire for profits. This is the price we have to pay for a free press. I hope one day the industry will either police or correct itself!

The number of people murdered at work consists of only 5 percent of all murders each year. This is sufficient enough, however, to bring fear of violence into the workplace. The fear of violence, whether it is the fear of actual physical violence or the more subtle violence of sexual and racial harassment, has turned the workplace from a sanctuary into the principle forum in which great social issues are being tested.

Changes in the workplace environment make the management of organizations much more difficult. It is not possible to eliminate all forms of violence from the workplace; however, our current problems are not so great that wise and enlightened leadership cannot turn the situation around before it gets worse. Management, with help from the law enforcement community, can significantly reduce the levels of criminal violence.

We should bear in mind that law enforcement organizations also have serious problems with violence in the workplace. In addition to the assaults and loss of lives on the job, we have the same problems with sexual, racial and verbal harassment as other occupations. We also have more than our fair share of officers assaulting one another either at home or in the station house. We can therefore do little to reduce the incidents of sexual, racial and verbal harassment in other organizations until we reduce these incidents within our own law enforcement organizations. Perhaps we can then contribute our success in reducing this type of violence to a body of knowledge from which others may benefit.

There are five major types of workplace violence:

• Robbery and other crimes directed at commercial establishments;
• Violence by one employee against another;
• Domestic violence and cases of misdirected affection;
• Violence in schools; and
• Crime by terrorists, arsonists, or political activists against business.

The purpose of this article is to examine the causes of violence by the disgruntled employee. In doing so other types of workplace violence are occasionally touched upon, but not in any great detail. This is only to alert the reader that all forms of violence have similar causes and a common solution. In focusing on the disgruntled employee, it is possible to apply these principles to reduce other forms of workplace violence.

This article will examine the causes of workplace violence, identify the types of employees who cause violence, suggest some internal methods organizational controls to reduce violence, suggest methods by which the police may be of assistance to business, and finally; to urge greater cooperation and liaison between private and public security forces.

Clearly, law enforcement agencies have a greater role to play in containing workplace violence than the reactive role we have played. Helping the business community understand the nature of workplace violence, and developing policies that can render the workplace safe is an opportunity for enforcement agencies to be of greater service to the entire community. A program of this type can be a vital aspect of a community based law enforcement policy. The overall cost of such a program is modest, but should pay sufficient dividends to the department by way of increased community support and prevention of serious crime.

There is no single cause of the various forms of violence that occur in the workplace. However, when considering just the violence caused by disgruntled employees, some major causes are clear:

• A history of violent or criminal behavior by the employee
• The abuse of drugs, including alcohol, by the employee, both on and off the job.
• Management practices that are extremely poor and overly authoritative
• Management toleration of employees or managers who use intimidation, harassment, or coercion in the workplace.
• The increase in the number of minorities and women in the workforce is another cause for violence in the workplace. Their presence generates resentment from some white males who are having difficulty adjusting to this and other rapid changes in our workforce culture.
• Revenge by employees who feel a loss of self because of a disciplinary action, usually dismissal.
• Media coverage of workplace violence that appeals to an employee seeking revenge. This coverage imparts an illusion of grandeur, a new rationalization, or a new method of retaliation, for the individual seeking a solution to his/her perceived problems.
• Financial gain by an employee or former employee using knowledge obtained while employed to plan and execute robbery, extortion, or kidnaping of executives or members of their families.
• Revenge directed at the company rather than fellow employees. Such actions as arson, sabotage, product tampering and vandalism of company property exemplify actions by disgruntled employees bent on retribution.

The above list is certainly not all inclusive. It does give sufficient information to conclude that much of the violence can be prevented by effective management intervention or proactive police involvement.

Naturally, it is not possible to positively identify all types of individuals who be involved in workplace violence. But, generally three types of persons are involved.

• The first is an individual who has a history of violent behavior. Past behavior patterns are always the best indicators of future behavior. It is imperative for companies to conduct some type of background check on applicants before hiring. Consider any evidence of prior violent behavior, or criminal behavior, as gro ds for rejection. These individuals are also the most likely to have alcohol or drug abuse problems. This then becomes the primary reason for having a company drug policy that includes some form of reasonable random drug testing.
• Second, there are individuals who develop into problem employees. They usually have a work record beginning with small behavioral problems that company officials dismiss or ignore. Commonly, the manager improperly handles the problem caused by the employee, so the problem festers and grows more intense in the mind of the employee. The employee's psychic state is allowed to deteriorate so that violence is the only perceived solution. Knowledgeable companies are addressing this problem at an early stage through the intervention of the human resources department. This is better than waiting until the problems must be handled by security personnel or the police.
• Finally, there are some individuals who become mentally deranged while on the job. Usually there are ample behavioral signs to identify this individual at an early stage of disability so the company can provide necessary assistance.

There are two other types of employees worth mentioning who, perhaps innocently, cause violence to visit the workplace. The abuse of female employees by males is, at times, unfortunately played out in her workplace. To the extent possible, without violating an individual's privacy, employees who have a spouse or companion using violence against them elsewhere should be encouraged to report them to company security. This will enable security measures to be effected should they visit the company. Another type of individual prone to violence is one who chooses to commit suicide in the workplace. This is done to display displeasure with an individual or the company. This is a most difficult situation to control from a security standpoint, and best handled by the human resources department through the use of psychological counseling. Should these measures fall short, there are security measures that can be taken to protect, in particular, innocent co-workers from harm.

Special Agent Tom Salp of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) at the FBI Academy, recently furnished a list of warning signs that may provide an indication of which problem employees might cause workplace disruption. Employee disruption is not necessarily predictable. The signs give managers an indication as to when it is time to intervene by providing the employee with assistance in overcoming his/her problems or attitude. These signs are:

• The employee has a history of violent behavior.
• The employee has an obsession with weapons, gun magazines, or the discussion of weapons.
• The individual carries a concealed weapon.
• The individual has a history of making threats or veiled threats.
• The employee use various forms of intimidation on fellow employees.
• The employee has an obsession with the job but has little, if any, involvement with coworkers.
• The individual makes unwanted romantic advances toward another employee.
• The employee exhibits paranoid behavior.
• The employee is incapable of accepting criticism.
• The employee holds grudges for a long time.
• They have family, financial or custody problems.
• The employee has exhibited an undo interest in recent violent acts in the workplace.
• The employee has a history of testing the limits of rules, regulations and social norms.
• There is a high level of stress in the job caused by labor problems, RIFs, or the introduction of high technology.
• The individual has exhibited extreme changes in behavior and/or political or religious beliefs.

Even if an employee exhibits all or some of these indicators, does not necessarily mean he or she will act out violent tendencies. Most will not! However, if an employee exhibits some of the above characteristics, it is prudent for management to intervene as quickly and directly as possible. The problem could be handled with counseling. For advice on how to proceed it may be necessary for managers to consult with outside experts in the field of law enforcement, mental health, or with the NCAVC. As Richard Ault of the Academy Group in Manassas, Virginia, recently explained, managers must realize that the loss of a job through disciplinary procedures can result in the loss of self-esteem on the part of the employee. This then can become an act of betrayal by the company, and could lead the employee to thoughts of revenge. The revenge-orientated person is most frequently identified as responsible for the multitude of workplace homicides we have seen in the United States. Dr. Ault advocates early intervention as the only means to prevent these individuals from causing more serious trouble.

The fundamental internal control necessary for all organizations is a policy that clearly states that violence of any type will not be tolerated. This policy should also include all forms of sexual, racial and verbal harassment. The human resources department should handle minor infractions of policy by employees in a reasonable and just manner. Repeated violations should be referred to the security department and/or appropriate authorities. The philosophy outlined in this zero-tolerance harassment policy should reflect that small problems are not going to be allowed to grow into larger problems and that firm measures will be taken against those who violate policy.

Drug abuse causes a high percentage of workplace violence. Every business organization should have a drug abuse policy that includes the random drug testing of all employees. This policy will also have a positive impact on productivity, reduce workplace injury and enhance the legal defensibility of the company for ensuring a safe workplace.

Each company should conduct background checks on applicants. This will help to weed out those potential employees who have a history of violent behavior, criminal activity, or drug abuse.

Employees experiencing marital difficulties involving violence should be encouraged to advise management of the problem. They should also furnish identifying information about the abusive individual. This enables the security department to deny facility-access to anyone bent on violence toward the employee.

Former employees should all be denied access to company facilities unless specifically authorized by an appropriate manager. This policy will afford the security department an appropriate period of time to make a determination as to the violence potential of former employees. Those deemed violent can be permanently banned from the workplace.

Finally, business organizations should have the internal resources, or employ resources outside the organization, to provide services to employees experiencing minor behavioral problems. A wise organization treats its employees as a valuable resource. All of us will probably have some problems throughout the course of our careers. It does not make much sense then to abandon employees when they experience a problem. Certainly the actions of some employees are cause for immediate dismissal. In many cases, however, employees are only terminated after their small performance problems are ignored. Lack of performance, or appropriate behavior, is therefore, by supervisory reaction, allowed to become potentially serious. Finally, many cases of employee misbehavior, the original problem with the employee was caused by poor supervision. Therefore, one can easily conclude that the best antidote for workplace violence is, in fact, good management.

Short of criminal activity, law enforcement agencies have traditionally taken a hands-off approach to problems occurring in the noncommercial workplace. We have preferred a reactive approach to workplace violence as opposed to a proactive approach. I suspect this philosophy is the result of business organizations preferring to keep their problems to themselves, a traditional disdain of law enforcement by business managers, and an appalling lack of knowledge on the part of business managers as to the ramifications of having disgruntled workers. Managers have traditionally paid little attention to the potential violent behavior by workers under stress. They have little understanding of what knowledgeable law enforcement organizations could do to help them identifying and solving employee problems.

On the other hand, we in law enforcement have always had a disdain for security officers. We considered them to be poorly trained and not capable of full police powers. In addition, our bias extended to businessmen, who we thought had to be forced to expend profits to buy equipment to protect their employees from the usual criminal activities such as robbery or embezzlement. Whether our biases were true, they still formed the basis of our negative opinion of "security." In the February 1994 issue of

Security Management, a publication of the American Society for Industrial Security on defusing workplace violence, I found no mention or recognition by the authors of police involvement as a suggested solution to the problem. In this article the authors would only think to call upon the police when the situation deteriorated beyond their control. While this evidence hardly suggests the entire corporate security field ignores the police, it does suggest a disturbing level of ignorance regarding the inherent seriousness of the problem and the current capabilities of many departments to render assistance. I suspect the current levels of violent crime in the workplace will, I hope, force each side to reassess our relationship. Cooperation between the police and the corporate security world is an idea whose time is long overdue.

Not all police agencies will find the following suggestions applicable to situations within their jurisdiction, nor are the suggestions offered complete or perfect. I make them to spawn more discussion and debate on the problems we are experiencing.

First, each law enforcement agency should appoint a suitable number of experienced officers to serve as liaison officers between the department and the business and public entities it serves. Usually this liaison will be between the officer and the security manager, the owner, or the head of the agency. Regular contact should be encouraged. Encouraging functions such as monthly lunch meetings will give both sides an opportunity to get to know each another, to exchange information and to demonstrate the services offered by the department.

Liaison officers should become experts on the matter of workplace violence. They should know the resources within their jurisdictions and the professionals who might be called upon to help resolve problems.

• For example, the police department might well call upon the experts in larger departments or the FBI Academy for assistance in "profiling" a potential avenger. It may also serve the interests of all parties concerned if the police, under certain circumstances, conducted a proactive interview of the employee.
• Second, the liaison officer should accumulate several model company policies regarding sexual, racial and verbal harassment to furnish to companies that have yet to introduce such policies. Every police department should have such a policy in effect, as well. In addition, the liaison officer should collect and disseminate to the business community, company policies regarding drug and alcohol abuse.
• Third, each department should develop a plan offering assistance to businesses that are targets for criminal activities. Depending on the size of the community and the number of officers available, law enforcement could provide this assistance at critical times during the day or night. Use of new technologies by businesses could provide police with timely notice of trouble and need for immediate assistance.
• Fourth, the police department or state training commission should offer training courses to business and security managers on the problems of workplace violence and the remedies available to reduce violent occurrences.
• Fifth, the department should have, or know where to obtain, immediate assistance from experts in the field of hostage negotiations, SWAT, emergency response teams, forensic experts and community experts. These sources of assistance should be available if an occasion arises where their services are necessary.
• Sixth, the liaison officer should make security, business and public officials know under what circumstances the police may be called upon to intervene. The liaison officer should also make known what services are available from the police to solve the immediate problem. The mutual understanding is essential because police agencies have precious little time to get involved in matters in which the public is not endangered or in matters that are the sole province of the organization involved.

Currently, many police organizations are providing the services outlined above within public school systems. This school safety program has enjoyed widespread success throughout the United States and has, where used properly, reduced the levels of violence considerably in public schools. That police have successfully designed and developed programs for public schools teaches us that similar programs can be designed for businesses and corporations. This type of community based policing can be most successful, first in reducing levels of violence, and second in raising the level of law enforcement and security officer professionalism.

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401