WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: HOW PREPARED ARE YOU?

Are your employees adequately prepared to deal with a serious incident of workplace violence? More to the point, are frontline personnel – including security guards and receptionists - able to detect that a person entering the premises could pose a threat of violence? Jared Higgins, the CEO of the Arcfyre Group, believes that employers who remain uncertain about their answers to these questions could find themselves facing serious and costly legal risks in the event that an employee or customer is killed or injured during a violent assault at the workplace.

Globally, reports of workplace violence are becoming more commonplace. In the US alone, around 1,000 employees are murdered each year at their place of employment. The majority of these murders are committed by people familiar with the victim, with fellow employees and estranged partners topping the list. Thousands more employees are injured in workplace assaults. The direct cost of these incidents, including legal and investigation fees, is estimated to be in excess of USD 4 billion per year. Often, issues of negligence on the part of the employer become the focus of post-incident litigation. And with increasing emphasis on the responsibilities of companies to ensure a safe working environment for employees, even more scrutiny in these cases is likely to fall on whether the employer was sufficiently pro-active when it came to identifying the threat of violence and acting to prevent it. “What it really comes down to,” Higgins states, “is a simple question: who knew what, when? If the answer to that question suggests that the employer did not exercise reasonable standards of care in preventative action, there are likely to be serious consequences for the company and its directors.”

Higgins notes that there is a trend for workplace violence to escalate during economic downturns. Workers who are laid off may hold a grudge against the employer, becoming more aggressive as their attempts to find alternative employment are thwarted by economic conditions. Other employers may experience increased stress levels as they become fearful of their jobs. Often these concerns manifest in conflict with fellow employees, or with managers. Sometimes, clients can turn on their service providers. Here Higgins provides a recent example of a man who threatened his financial adviser with a firearm after claiming that he had been given advice that had ruined him. “We need to come to terms with the fact that we are living in an age of rage,” Higgins states.

As Higgins sees it, part of the problem is that in South Africa we have become so accustomed to a stereotypical image of a balaclava-clad hoodlum armed with a semi-automatic rifle that people who do not fit this description generally are not recognized as posing a threat of violence. The person in a suit typically will receive no more than cursory attention from frontline security personnel. What companies need to recognize, however, is that there is a legal obligation on their part to ensure that security personnel are properly qualified and competent, and that their duties are guided by clear policies and procedures. This applies even when security is outsourced to an independent provider.

As Higgins points out, however, the problem is not a simple one. More stringent access control measures, including vehicle searches and metal detectors, might make for a safer work environment but are hardly conducive to making clients or customers feel welcome. Such measures can also prove to be costly at a time when most companies are looking for ways to cut unnecessary overheads. The reality is that the vast majority of people entering your premises are there for legitimate reasons. Added to this is the fact that most threats of workplace violence emanate from employees themselves, 'insiders' who can readily enter and leave the premises with little more than a superficial check at best. 

The solution, Higgins believes, lies in providing frontline employees with basic awareness skills to detect and respond to suspicious behavior. “A person arriving at an office with the intent to commit violence is likely to exhibit a range of behavioral indicators that should alert personnel to the fact that there is a possible threat,” he explains. These signs may include excessive agitation, verbal aggression, or belligerently insisting that they be allowed to gain access to a particular building or office. Signs that the person may be carrying a weapon may also be evident. In that case, Higgins points out, frontline staff could bear the brunt of frustrated rage if the individual is denied access. This makes it even more important that those personnel have basic skills in dealing with the threat.

When the threat comes not from outside the company but from an employee who already has access to the premises, recognizing behavioral warning signs may play an even greater role. In these cases, Higgins notes, there is almost invariably a period preceding the violent assault when the person exhibits a number of behavioral clues that they are planning to commit an act of violence, or have reached a point where impulsive violence is a possibility. This is supported by research conducted into workplace shootings in the US, where studies reveal that in many cases the perpetrator repeatedly threatened that they would commit a violent act, sometimes even describing to fellow employees how they would go about doing it. Too often, these warning signs were either missed, or actively dismissed as meaningless. But, Higgins explains, changes in statutory requirements and legal responsibilities have forced employers to become increasingly aware of the need for an ‘early warning system that allows for the identification of employees and external parties who pose a potential threat.

Higgins suggests that one of the key indicators to be alert for is a distinct change in regular behaviour. “People who suddenly become withdrawn, depressed, abusive or aggressive, or show some other noticeable change in personality or behaviour are signaling that they are under some form of stress,” he says. “And when that change in behavior is accompanied by threats of violence, or repeated fantasies about committing violence, the onus is on the company to intervene.” This may include referring the employee for professional help. In cases where a threat has been made against a specific individual, there may also be legal responsibilities to inform the individual concerned about the threat and provide protection for them until the situation is resolved.

In the final analysis, Higgins argues, this means that every employee should be considered a frontline employee when it comes to recognizing danger and protecting the workplace from violence. But the primary responsibility is on the company management to ensure that personnel, especially line managers, have these basic awareness skills backed up by an effective system for reporting and responding to potential threats.