Skip to content

Articles

Workplace Violence Prevention & Intervention | An Article for IAOM 
Pitmon Foxall, MS CSIS Consultants, LLC – Denver, CO 

Scenario 

Several weeks ago, a long-term, problem employee was terminated from employment by the Human Resources (HR) department. In the days following, the HR Manager who conducted the termination meeting reported seeing the now ‘ex-employee’ outside her home. His immediate supervisor and several former co-workers began receiving hang-up calls at their homes. Several days after the termination, one of the co-workers was seriously injured during an assault by a masked assailant. The suspect was never identified. 

A few days ago, the legal department informed your CEO that a lawsuit had been filed against the company. The suit also named your CEO as a co-defendant. In addition to a monetary demand, counsel for the plaintiffs allege the company failed to properly manage the termination of the employee. Further, plaintiffs’ counsel has asserted your company has not implemented any of the guidelines approved by the American National Standards Institute, Inc. set forth in the Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention (WPVI) Standard 1-2011, a collaborative effort by the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). At the core of the lawsuit is the assertion that the company has failed to provide adequate security for its current employees who are being harassed and attacked by a disgruntled ‘ex-employee.’

While this may be a fictitious scenario, the circumstances just described could likely occur in any workplace in America. The ASIS/SHRM standard, published in 2011, provides the necessary guidelines intended to aid organizational leaders and managers in recognizing, identifying and mitigating potential acts of violence in the workplace. The focus of this discussion will be the mitigation and intervention of workplace violence incidents using an interdisciplinary strategy and creating a cross functional Threat Assessment Team (TAT). 

The above scenario could have been the result of any number of circumstances leading up to the employee’s termination. Typical circumstances may include missed or ignored warning signs, lack of workplace violence prevention awareness or ineffective intervention due to resource silos. Silos tend to develop over time as a result of organizational culture and turf protection. As a result, what evolves is an ad hoc response for managing potential incidents of workplace violence or for terminating high-risk employees who could potentially become violent. (See illustration above). 

Ad Hoc Workplace Violence Response 

  • WPV Incident
  • HR
  • Legal
  • Corporate Security
  • Behavioral Sciences

Scenario 

A problem employee had been on the HR radar for some time. There had been several performance reviews, counseling sessions, disciplinary actions and EAP referrals. Independent of the actions taken by HR, the Legal team had been discussing a termination process that would protect the company from potential litigation. Throughout this ad hoc process, no consideration was given to the employee’s mental state. Further, none of this information had been provided to the Corporate Security team due to the culture of the organization, or, perhaps, simple oversight. However, after it was suggested the employee may react adversely, both HR and Legal decided to notify the security team just hours before the termination. It had been reported the employee made several veiled threats against the company and management. These threats were not addressed by HR since they were made away from the workplace. Adding to the circumstances was the company’s outdated code of conduct and no annual review requirement. In addition, the company did not have a workplace violence prevention policy based on the ASIS/SHRM standard. 

An effective workplace violence policy document should be succinct and incorporate the key provisions of the ASIS/SHRM standards. Specifically, the policy should include: 

  1. Definition of workplace violence; 
  2. Brief explanation of prohibited behaviors and employee responsibilities; 
  3. Company reporting procedures; and, 
  4. Information about how the company will manage affected employees. 

Additionally, the policy document should contain language that informs all employees of the company’s training and awareness programs related to the potential for workplace violence. 

An effective document should provide the foundation for a sound WPVI program. However, additional elements are necessary before an effective plan can be implemented. Specifically, the ASIS/SHRM standard recommends establishing an interdisciplinary threat assessment team to augment an enterprise workplace violence prevention program. 

Establishing a Threat Assessment Team (TAT) will ensure your leadership team has the appropriate resources available to manage a workplace violence event before it happens. Ideally, TAT members should have the organizational knowledge, experience, interpersonal skills and abilities to effectively manage crises and resolve conflict. Further, it is critical that each team member have the authority to make decisions. It is less than desirable, and sometimes impossible, to attempt to de-escalate a potentially volatile situation without team members who have organizational authority. 

Preventing workplace violence requires collaboration. In many cases, this process is driven entirely by HR. And, companies are more often interested only in terminating the problem employee and getting them off company property. In the scenario described earlier, critical action steps were either ignored or overlooked. Implementing an interdisciplinary approach assures key indicators are recognized and that appropriate action steps are taken in a timely.

manner. To be effective, it is important the TAT is just as proactive as it is reactive when managing workplace violence incidents. 

Conceptually, a TAT would meet on a regular basis – not just during a critical incident. The goal is to have a cohesive team that will ensure, on an on-going basis, the company is doing its due diligence and adhering to its core values relative to protecting employees by preventing workplace violence. Objectives include, but are not limited to: 

  • Continuous policy review 
  • Compliance with ASIS/SHRM WPVI.1-2011 standard 
  • Critical incident review 
  • Discussion of best practices from Legal, HR and Corporate Security and behavioral sciences perspectives 

At a minimum, a recommended format for a TAT should include decision makers from HR, Legal, Corporate Security and a third-party mental health professional. (See illustration at right). Through open communication and collaboration, the combined expertise of these four disciplines can ensure due diligence has been addressed by mitigating a potentially violent outcome and increasing the security and safety of both employees and company assets. 

Interdisciplinary Threat Assessment Team 

  • Threat Assessment Team
  • Corporate Security
  • Legal
  • Human Resources
  • Behavioral Sciences

If your organizational structure does not include a corporate security component, one option may be to reach out to your local law enforcement agency for assistance. This can be done without disclosing propriety or confidential personnel information. Local hospitals in your community may be able to provide limited professional mental health resources. Establishing relationships with local service providers before a critical workplace violence incident occurs can be extremely beneficial to your company, your employees and your community.

As you formulate your workplace violence policy and identify TAT members, I recommend engaging subject matter experts (SME) from the behavioral sciences and threat assessment fields. This expertise and guidance will be instrumental as these individuals can provide knowledge from both the theoretical and practical applications of their respective professions, as well as experience from industry lessons learned. 

Throughout the course of my corporate security career, Dr. Marc McElhaney and Dr. Steve Albrecht have been invaluable resources in the area of threat assessment and management. Dr. McElhaney and his staff at Critical Response Associates provide an array of behavioral assessment services related to the mitigation and prevention of workplace violence. Dr. Albrecht, a member of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) and Certified Threat Manager, is a consultant who has written several books and articles on violence in the workplace. 

Today’s workplace is constantly evolving to meet the demands of business and the ever-increasing needs of work-life balance for employees. As CEOs develop strategies to meet these challenges, it is important to consider contingencies that prevent or mitigate the possibility of violence in the workplace and the potential impact to employees and the business. By developing an effective workplace violence prevention program based on the ASIS/SHRM WPVI standard and assembling an interdisciplinary TAT, leadership can better demonstrate the company has fulfilled its obligation to due diligence in protecting its employees and its brand.