Critique:

Opperman's article did a good job of introducing the topic of workplace violence. It helped defuse the myth that some workplaces are immune from workplace violence. In addition, by alluding to the term "going postal" and describing the incident at NASA, Opperman made it clear that federal agencies are very at-risk for workplace violence. In addition, Opperman did a good job of defusing other myths about workplace violence, such as the fact that workplace violence is almost always preceded by very threatening behavior. In that way, Opperman's article was a good introduction to the topic of workplace violence.

However, Opperman's article was seriously lacking in substance. The article's title asks the question "is your agency prepared?" But leaves the reader with no real way to assess whether their workplace is prepared to deal with workplace violence. From the title, the reader expects to see a detailed description of the steps that agencies need to take in order to be prepared to deal with workplace violence. For example, one expects Opperman to describe predictors of workplace violence. Yes, Opperman describes the fact that workplace violence is often preceded by threats and violent displays, but he does not describe the type of threats that should concern agency security officials. How...

For example, many federal agencies have standard security measures, such as security checkpoints and metal detectors. However, the assailant in the NASA incident was able to smuggle his weapon past the security checkpoint. What type of security should the various federal workplaces be employing to help protect against workplace violence? Which agencies have the greatest threat of workplace violence, or is the threat relatively evenly distributed across the spectrum of federal agencies? Does the federal government have a duty to provide employees with a designated person for the reporting of workplace threats, and what rights does a federal employee have when targeted by those threats? Answering those types of questions would have given the reader a much better idea of whether or not each agency is prepared to deal with the threat of workplace violence.