Answers to three most asked questions about workplace violence

Larry J. Chavez, M.P.A., knows about violence first hand.

He has 28 years of experience in local law enforcement with the Sacramento, CA Police Department, spending 15 of those years in crisis negotiation as the senior hostage negotiator. Chavez, a graduate of the FBI Hostage Negotiation School, Quantico, VA, has a consulting firm, Critical Incident Associates, which conducts hostage survival and workplace violence seminars for such clients as the United Nations World Health Organization, Japan; NASA-AMES Research Center; the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Packard Bell-NEC; and the U.S. Postal Inspectors Service.

In the aftermath of the workplace murders of seven employees of Edgewater Technologies Inc. in Wakefield, MA, this week (See Safety Online, "Massachusetts workplace rampage leaves seven dead"), Chavez offers these answers to the three most frequently asked questions about workplace violence:

1. Do people just snap?
No. A violent outburst can be better characterized as a "slow burn" -- the result of a culmination of unresolved personal problems that may not be readily apparent to co-workers. Some of these problems can go on for years. Examples:

• A failing personal relationship.
• Economic hardship characterized by unresolved debts or wage garnishments.
• Feelings of personal failure characterized by a lack of progression in status.
• Actual or perceived injustice in the workplace.
• Unwillingness on the part of the employee, usually a male, to ask for help.

Men outnumber women 98-2 as perpetrators of fatal workplace violence incidents, and it is not part of the "male culture" to ask for assistance, said Chavez. Men see themselves as problem-solvers as long as it is somebody else's problem they are solving.

Forcing employees into a counseling program does not guarantee participation.

Chavez said that any combination of these problems could be predictors of violence, as can the access to firearms. Access to firearms is another predictor. Michael McDermott, the man arrested for the shootings in Massachusetts, had three unregistered guns with him at the time of his arrest, and police allegedly found materials that are used in the making of bombs at his home.

The problem is further complicated by contributing workplace factors, said Chavez, including:

• A weak or non-existent policy prohibiting violence in the workplace.
• Lack of training on the part of managers and supervisors leading to a failure to recognize signs or symptoms of impending violence and to act on them.
• Failure on the part of the employer to intervene.
• A poor or non-existent reporting system.
• Failure to take threats seriously.
• Poor physical security.

2. Are there warning signs of impending violence?
Yes. Most of the cases that result in fatal outcomes have clear warning signs. The signals to watch out for include:

• Newly acquired negative traits.
• Sudden changes in personal behavior.
• Decrease in productivity.
• Inability to concentrate.
• Sudden withdrawal from current circle of friends or acquaintances.
• Newly acquired poor personal hygiene.
• Problems with attendance or tardiness.
• Overreaction to stimuli and/or poor impulse control ("snapping" at co-workers).
• Indicators of suicide (i.e., actual discussion or giving away valued personal property).
• Actual or veiled threats to co-workers.
• Sabotage or theft of property of employer or co-workers.
• Fear on the part of co-workers that they are unable to articulate. In many cases, the employees observed some traits that caused them to be fearful. At the University of Washington Medical school, it was learned that employees who feared a particular doctor who was failing an internship program actually locked their doors when he was in the area. Within days, the failing doctor killed his professor-mentor and committed suicide.

3. Is workplace violence random?
Cases of internal workplace violence are anything but random. In most cases, people are targeted merely because the perpetrator knows or perceives that they had something to do with his current plight. Or, the targeted employees were assigned to positions in the organization that the perpetrator feels are responsible for perceived injustices to him. Examples:

• Dec. 26, 2000, in the Wakefield, MA incident, there are strong indications that the perpetrator blamed his employer, specifically the accounting section for collaborating with the IRS in a wage garnishment. Seven coworkers were killed.
• Nov. 2, 1999, in the Xerox shootings in Honolulu, the perpetrator singled out his own work group perceiving that they were responsible for his impending termination. Seven coworkers were killed.
• April 25, 1995, at the Richmond, CA, Housing Authority, the perpetrator shot his two female supervisors to death and allowed other employees in the same room to live.
• June 28, 2000, at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, a medical doctor who was failing an internship program blamed his mentor for his plight. Two died in the murder-suicide.

For more information about workplace violence, visit Chavez' Web site at http://www.workplace-violence.com.

Edited by Sandy Smith
Managing Editor, Safety Online
E-mail: ssmith@verticalnet.com