Workplace Violence Again

There seems to be some recurrence of workplace safety in my news feed recently. Despite this, the holiday season of 2022 will perhaps be overshadowed by various other captivating news stories regarding elections, Ukraine, celebrities, and more. It is an eventful time. Nonetheless, I recently noted two drunk driving allegations and the implications those can have for workplace safety, see Workplace Road Safety (November 2022). 

But, another tragic story brings focus to education and preparation. The Associated Press (AP) reported last month on workplace violence in Virginia. A disturbed and disgruntled team leader in a retail store entered a break room and began shooting coworkers. There were six killed and another six wounded. The gunman "then apparently killed himself." It was a tragic incident and will touch many lives. It reiterates the questions we too often ask about mental health and the decisions people make. Some jurisdictions say they will take more active roles as regards mental health, which bears watching. 

In this Virginia instance, one of the team leader's employees noted that this team leader "was the manager to look out for." She described him as having "a history of writing people up for no reason." The AP asserts that there may be some method or process for identifying "worrisome behavior among employees," and "recogniz(ing) warning signs." Beyond the recognition of potential problems, the AP asserts that employees "don't know how to report suspicious behavior or feel empowered to do so," citing "experts." 

It is easy to find an "expert." Too often, they are Monday morning quarterbacks (see Perspectives on Evidence, December 2022). An "expert" may be "a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field" (Niels Bohr). Or, an expert may be "somebody who is more than 50 miles from home, has no responsibility for implementing the advice he gives, and shows slides (Edwin Meese). Or, an expert may be somewhere in between. "Experts" tend to draw adulation or disdain, often based in large part on whether they agree with one's individual perspectives.

The AP story also notes the effort that has been invested in recent years upon "active shooter training." This is training that focuses on what we might do when faced with the immediacy of violence. There is a great deal of information on the Internet regarding active shooters. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has admittedly done much in its history to impair its own credibility, but its active shooter information is worthy of consideration. 

The FBI defines "active shooter" as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people." It then continues with "in a populated area," which seems to make less sense. If "populated" means there are "any" people present, then it is redundant. If "populated" means that there are many people present, I would suggest that is irrelevant. Killing is killing, and the population of the location in which killing occurs seems of little import. But, I am no expert. 

The FBI acknowledges the role of law enforcement in responding to an Active Shooter but stresses the important role individuals play in their own response to such a situation. It is often easy to say/predict how we think we might individually respond to any situation or hypothetical. But, I certainly don't know how I would respond to such a threat (onslaught) of violence. The FBI advocates "three tactics" as the best individual response. In order, it recommends that you "run, hide, and fight." There is no reason to take the risk of a fight if you can run or hide. The website also has online training available. 

The FBI also notes how it has invested in "successful prevention of these active shooter incidents." It describes "operational, behaviorally-based threat assessment and threat management" as a path to "help detect and prevent acts of targeted violence." It acknowledges that part of the challenge lies in mental health, and envisions a broad coalition prevention approach that includes "business, community, law enforcement, and government entities."

The focus of this is to "recognize and disrupt potential active shooters." The FBI suggests that those "on a trajectory toward violence" may be identified and perhaps deterred or intercepted before the actual violence begins. Perhaps, this is what the AP suggests as a worthy element of training that should be provided by employers. Perhaps employees could be instructed regarding profiling their coworkers and reporting behavior to management? It is critical, perhaps, that the alleged shooter in Virginia was apparently part of management. 

The AP suggests that workers "too often don’t know how to recognize warning signs." Can employees be better aware of potential threats and processes for forestalling violence? If they do note such behavior, to whom should they report it, and what potential implications or complications might they face as a result? I have worked in "chain of command" businesses in which approaching upper management was at best discouraged. Some might have perceived it as forbidden. How does the work culture both train employees to spot concerns and facilitate and enable open communication and consideration?

There are suggestions noted by the AP "including confidential hotlines." The experts discuss spotting of “red flags,” but they stress those are not the solitary potentials. They note that "workers should be looking for the 'yellow flags'” that may appear in someone's behavior or perhaps even words. These, the "experts" suggest are more "subtle changes in behavior, like increased anger or not showing up for work." Perhaps, that anger could be manifested in a manager that is "the manager to look out for" or is the one that "writ(es) people up for no reason." Maybe such behavior, or changes in intensity or frequency of it, might be "yellow flags" that bear mentioning to upper management?

The AP quotes the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). It notes that most human resource professionals lack knowledge about their company's "policies to prevent workplace violence." Of the remainder, that knew about policies," a significant percentage knew their company "lacked such programs." In this, there is at least the suggestion that greater training may be necessary in awareness. It is possible companies have such policies and procedures, and employees are not aware. It is also possible that companies lack such training or policies, in which case "experts" may need to be retained. 

The AP concedes that workplace homicides are not at their worst. There was a period in the 1990s in which the problem was more widespread. Despite that, the AP quotes a NIOSH report that such violence is currently trending back upward. The threat of workplace homicide is real. Texas leads the volume reported there, with California in a close second. Florida ranks third, which is perhaps not surprising as it is the third most populous state. However, the report documents (for 2019) very low numbers, or even zero, in places like Virginia. The report is somewhat sobering.  

The safety of workers is a critical element of the employee/employer relationship, as is the workers' compensation construct. The safety interest is broader, however, encompassing the public as well. Spotting the "yellow" flags may be more difficult in the brief moments with customers and visitors, but the investment in employee training might bring dividends there as well. The awareness might well be instrumental in someone getting the help s/he needs before violence erupts. The AP's point regarding education and preparation is well taken.