Investigations of workplace violence

¶ … Workplace Violence

Everyday in the United States millions of Americans leave their homes and enter the places of their employment. Captain Among these millions, most report to work unaware of the prevalence of workplace violence or fully understand the gamut of actions that represent such violence. It is typical of the media to only report high profile cases including a former employee or a worker losing control - the most extreme of these scenarios in which victims succumb to severe injury or homicide. Although it is commonplace for media outlets to cover the most disturbingly sensational scenes, workplace violence is also a legitimate concern outside the realm of the most severe circumstances. Workplace violence has the potential to not only physically, but emotionally harm employees and others interacting at the work location.

Put simply, workplace violence is considered to be the violence or the threat of violence against workers. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), workplace violence includes but is not limited to: any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other act of disruptive behavior that occurs at a work site (USDA, 1998). Furthermore, workplace violence is not confined to only employees. It can also affect and is relevant to visitors, contractors, and other non-employees at the work site. The triggers of workplace violence can be a consequence of various emotionally internal and physically external experiences that can occur within or outside the work environment. The resulting workplace violence that can arise from these triggers is impossible to predict, as human behavior can not be calculated. Although a specific profile does not exist for perpetrators of workplace violence, there are warning signs and prevention methods for businesses to utilize to promote safety for employees and non-employees.

To initiate these prevention methods it is imperative to understand the history of workplace violence. By understanding previous incidents of workplace violence one can assess security inadequacies, evaluate risk, and estimate other security threats. Establishing a basis for security weaknesses leads to development in response protocol to better prepare those for threatening situations. Another integral component of security is to educate employees on what constitutes workplace violence and its prevalence in the workforce. Employers and human resource personnel should also educate employees regarding tolerance of workplace violence and available resources for coping with such occurrences. Knowledge is an important tool for reducing security risks and promotes empowerment for those who have been victimized by workplace violence.

Workplace violence is a relevant concern for employers and businesses as thousands of Americans encounter such violence in various forms on a daily basis. To better understand the dynamic of such violence one must first examine its history. From the history one can begin to comprehend the prevalence of workplace violence. By recognizing its commonality one gains awareness for warning signs and triggers, and is able to better prepare security responses. In instances of non-life threatening workplace violence, businesses can address these circumstances with education and resources for employees to exercise. As businesses understand these elements, the workforce can strive for the ultimate goal regarding workplace violence: prevention. Prevention is crucial to eliminating workplace violence and the greatest ally to provide physical and emotional safety to workers.

The first recognition of the necessity for workplace safety was the initiation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Act of 1970. The motivation behind the commencement of OSHA was to protect workers from harm on the job, including job-related death, injury, and illness. It was the first federal program aimed at protecting the entire workforce from the hazards of job requirements (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007). However the limitations of OSHA were confined to work-related harm, providing assistance only to employees physically affected by the demands of their job. At the time of its implementation, the concept of workplace violence had yet to be defined, let alone be understood as a legitimate threat to the well-being of the workforce.

The first incident of workplace violence to reach the public domain as a result of media attention occurred on August 20, 1986. The perpetrator was Patrick H. Sherrill, a part-time letter carrier, who walked into the Edmond, Oklahoma, post office where he worked and shot fourteen people to death before taking his own life (Isaacs, 2001). According to the Department of Justice, the Edmond killings were the first to raise public awareness for what is now considered "workplace violence." As tragic as this event was, it was not the first of its kind. In the three years prior to the Edmond killings, four postal employees were killed by coworkers in separate shootings in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia. It was not until the murders in Edmond did such tragedy receive national attention.

Concerns regarding workplace violence among public and private sector businesses continued to grow as awareness amplified. However, in the early 1990s, statistical information was not available to develop prevention methods. Statistical data maintained by OSHA at the time tracked employees that were injured or killed at the work location, but did not maintain record of those injuries and deaths caused by current or former employees. In 1994, the Workplace Violence Research Institute interviewed more than six-hundred professionals in a variety of fields affected by workplace violence. The goal of the study was to calculate the annual financial loss due to incidents of violence. The events were categorized into one of five categories: fatalities, rapes, aggravated assaults, threats, and acts of harassment. The results of the investigation estimated that workplace violence measured a $36 billion annual cost to businesses (Morris, 2010).

In the following years, the media continued to intensify this seemingly new trend as mass murders continued to occur in the workplace at the hands of unstable employees. In the United States, no area of the country, or profession, was exempt from these incidents. In Southern California alone, from 1989-1997, there were fifteen workplace homicide events, resulting with twenty-nine deaths. In the years following, major crimes in the workplace included four executives killed by a Connecticut lottery accountant in 1998; a Xerox employee murdered seven coworkers in Honolulu in 1999; a software engineer killed seven at the Edgewater Technology Company in Wakefield, Massachusetts, in 2000; four were slain by a former forklift driver at Navistar Plant in Chicago in 2001. Additional workplace homicides occurred in New York, Missouri, and Mississippi during 2002-2003 - all resulting with multiple fatalities (Isaacs, 2001).

The cases of workplace homicide are the most severe, distinct, and haunting. These captivating accounts peak the attention of the media, however they do not represent the full magnitude of workplace violence as a whole. The instances of multiple homicides comprise a very small number of those who have been victimized, and do not encapsulate the prevalence of workplace violence. According to OSHA, two million Americans are victims of workplace violence each year. The actions that constitute workplace violence include the act or threat of physical violence, intimidation, emotional and sexual harassment, or any other threatening and abrasive behavior occurring at the work location. Workplace violence is not restricted to employees and business personnel, and can affect anyone in the workplace, including customers, visitors, etc.

Everyone can be subject to workplace violence, as it does not discriminate. Some professions and specific job requirements, however, put those at increased risk. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration indicates workers at higher risk consist of jobs that require employees to exchange money with the public, delivery services, those that work alone or in small groups, late night and early morning workers, high-crime areas, or in positions that demand extensive contact with the public (U.S. Department of Labor, 2002). Examples of such professions include healthcare providers, utility employees, food services industry workers, and retail workers.

The Department of Justice advises most incidents that employees and managers have to "handle" on a day-to-day basis include lesser cases of assaults, domestic violence, stalking, threats, emotional and sexual harassment, physical and emotional abuse. Most of these cases remain unreported to company officials, let alone the police (Isaacs, 2001). In relevance to cases that have been reported, various studies and investigations have been conducted to examine such factors as prevalence, high-risk groups, and profiles to compare characteristics shared between victims of workplace violence.

In one such recent study, a research team investigated workplace violence prevalence and risk factors among nurses. As members of the healthcare community, nurses endure one of the highest rates of reported incidents; their interaction with the public and the urgency of their services provided already placing them at greater risk. This research was conducted among 2,166 nursing personnel from four healthcare organizations, and examined the prevalence of workplace violence experienced by nurses compared to demographic, adult and childhood abuse histories, and other risk factors.

The study from this focus group concluded that 19.4% of nursing personnel experienced physical workplace violence, and 19.9% experienced psychological violence. The risk factors relevant to this study group included: being a nurse, working in the emergency department, white, male, longer employment, older age, intimate partner violence, and childhood abuse. Although these risk factors were significant to this sample of nursing personnel, the study concludes that adult and childhood abuse histories have not been examined in prior investigations. These factors were significant with other previously identified risk factors, and should be considered in future large-scale investigations to be substantiated as legitimate risk factors for workplace violence (Campbell, 2011).

As adult and childhood abuse histories have been signified as potential risk factors, another indicated risk for workplace violence is the health, or lack of, within romantic partnerships and its crossover into the workplace. One recent study assessed the predictors of aggression by comparing perceived injustices from workplace supervisors and romantic partners. The aim of the investigation was to observe two different interpersonal relationships, working and romantic, the aggression enacted in both and the potential crossover effects from one relationship to the other. The investigation studied sixty-two heterosexual couples, with all partners employed part-time and working for different supervisors. This sample showed that higher levels of perceived injustices by supervisors predicted higher supervisor-directed aggression, however when workers experienced higher levels of perceived injustices by romantic partners, supervisor-directed aggression was lower (Dupre, 2010). The effects of interpersonal relationships, the potential for crossover aggression, and an unhealthy tolerance for injustices, are not to be ignored. The psychology of workplace relationships and romantic relationships, and emotional projections are contributors to workplace violence, however this sample size of sixty-two partnerships is too marginal for defining conclusions. This is another instance where a large-scale investigation is required to further understand the depths of psychological triggers and contributors to workplace violence.

The significance of interpersonal relationships is critical to understanding the prevalence and triggers of workplace violence, however there are still professions that put employees at the highest risk of violence regardless of pre-existing risk factors. Amid all professions in which workers interact with the public, taxi drivers are at the highest risk to experience workplace violence in the United States. In particular, taxi drivers are at the highest risk to experience workplace homicide at a rate four times more likely than police and other law enforcement jobs. One study examined the reflection of stress in the workplace, and its application to taxi drivers. The research investigated the role of social norms and societal roles as an instigator of workplace violence. Potential explanations for the high incident rate of threats, assaults, and robberies present for taxi drivers include: the power dynamic between the driver and the customer as an exploitation of the weak, racism as indicated between foreign and non-foreign drivers, and the prevalence in high crime and high tourism areas. The study indicated there was a limited amount of statistical significance regarding the exploitation of power in these social roles, however there was increased incidence of workplace violence with native-born taxi drivers (Schwer, 2010).

There are a multitude of studies that attempt to identify the range of triggers for workplace violence. Other indicators of problem behavior and potential triggers include those upset over recent events, whether they are work-related or personal, resistance to authority, projection of blame onto others, the making of threatening references, and withdrawal from normal activities. Additional signs can involve certain attitudes, such as isolation or those promoting moral superiority and senses of entitlement. Those with a history of violence also indicate a significant risk factor. As the possibilities and probabilities of incidents of workplace violence, their triggers, and risk factors become more apparent, it is imperative to introduce security options and awareness for workers to protect themselves.