Workplace Violence Case Study

Walaa Essam, Group 52F

ESLSCA Business School

Workplace Violence Case Study

Introduction

This case study addresses the problem of workplace violence by analyzing two actual incidents which took place at two renowned multinational firms, which are “DaimlerChrysler’s Toledo, Ohio, assembly plant” and “Lockheed Martin”.
The purpose of this study is to help finding a useful managerial tool to decrease the potential for future workplace violence that may lead to loss of life and unnecessary monetary loss. Managers are not necessarily equipped to develop appropriate measures to effectively deal with violent issues.
Given the proper tool, managers can often work wonders.
But we first need to look at how we define the problem of workplace violence. Generally, people think of workplace violence solely in the context of physical assaults or homicides. Many mental health professionals consider such a definition too narrow, and instead define workplace violence more broadly, such as "any verbal or physical assault or any violence that occurs in the workplace even if its source is not related to the work environment or any abusive, threatening, intimidating, or assaulting conduct against a co-worker whether physical or verbal. Such conduct can be seen in the form of shaking fists, throwing objects, destroying company property, written or verbal threats, swearing, insults, condescending language, hitting, shoving, pushing, kicking and the like. When the definition of workplace violence is viewed in a more expansive context, the risk factors become clearer and, importantly, easier to manage, because it also could be in many cases a gradual process, as employees might experience several hints before a severe violence incident like homicide takes place. This study mainly focuses on homicide in the workplace, however other forms of workplace violence will not be neglected as it could be a normal development cycle finally leading to homicide.
Homicide at workplace has been the second leading cause of work related death. In particular, and according to the two cases of DaimlerChrysler and Lockheed Martin, the focus is violence committed by employees or former employees and directed against fellow employees, supervisors and managers. In the study sections, I will mainly start by defining the workplace violence problem by showing its extent and cost payed by businesses, then I will move to justifying the problem and finding its root causes, jumping to list of alternatives that might help facing the problem in general, then proceeding with evaluating the provided alternatives separately to judge their efficiency in solving the problem, and finally deciding upon which is the best alternative to be adopted by DaimlerChrysler and
Lockheed Martin in particular, considering their work environment and the specific cases they have experienced. 1 Problem Definition

Work-related violence has serious consequences for employees and for the businesses they work for. Victims may suffer not only from physical injury, but also psychological effects, such as anxiety and stress. For their employers this can represent a real financial cost - through low staff morale and high staff turnover. This in turn can affect the confidence of a business, its profitability and even its viability.
Further costs may arise from expensive insurance premiums and compensation payments.
In short the problem form a management perspective –which is our main concern in this study- is mainly defined as the employer liability for failing to take appropriate action in preventing workplace violence. Employers have a legal duty to provide reasonable protection to their employees and members of the general public from violence in their workplace. Under Section 5(a)(1), often referred to as the
"General Duty Clause," of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer is required to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees." Twenty-six states, including Georgia, have adopted State Plans, approved by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which incorporate similar "general duty" language.
Accordingly, it is required that employers must consider the risks to employees (including the risk of reasonably foreseeable violence); decide how significant these risks are; decide what to do to prevent or control the risks; develop a clear management plan to achieve this. And we will all agree on one fact, which is,
“If a business successfully manages the risk of violence, it will usually manage other risks equally well. In other words, a well-managed business is likely to be a safe business ”.

2 Justification of the Problem

Statistics from a study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), one of the most comprehensive studies of violence in the workplace, are staggering:
 Homicide was the second leading cause of death from an injury in the workplace, accounting for approximately 7,600 deaths from 1992 to 1997;
 Forty-one percent (41%) of all deaths from occupational injuries involving women were the result of homicides;
 Seventy-five percent (75%) of all occupational homicides were the result of gun use; fourteen percent (14%) could be attributed to knives or other piercing tools;
 Non-fatal workplace assaults resulted in nearly 900,000 lost workdays and an annual $16 million in lost wages; and
 In 1997 alone, employers were hit with over $4.2 billion dollars in lost productivity and legal fees due to workplace violence.

We look at these statistics and horrific incidents of workplace violence and ask, "What pushes these people over the edge?" "Could this happen in my workplace?" and "Didn't anybody see this coming?"
The fact is that the warning signs of unstable persons are there. The signs, however, are often misread or ignored, or we attempt to justify telltale actions as "personality quirks." And the warning signs of overly stressed work environments are also there; we account for those who perpetuate such environments by describing them as "efficient" or "highly productive."
We would all agree that an unstable employee, coupled with an overly stressed work environment, creates a bad combination. Indeed, we see the effects of this dangerous combination in our workplaces on a regular basis. Statistically speaking, workplace homicides represent only a small portion of violent incidents in the workplace--approximately one percent. In contrast, approximately one million workers a year--nearly 18,000 a week--are assaulted at work, 4 Workers are faced with threats, harassment, bullying, verbal and physical intimidation, stalking and other forms of unacceptable behavior that, when left unchecked, have the potential to lead to significantly more violent behavior like homicide.
More precisely we can divide the causes behind workplace violence into two main factors, namely: (1) Workplace Factors and (2) Psychological Factors.
(1) Workplace Factors
According to Kelleher (1996), nine elements that directly impact the work environment were listed, this includes: excessive workload, inadequate time to complete the assigned task, poor supervision, uncertain organizational climate, insufficient authority to meet job responsibilities, unclear responsibilities or job functions, philosophical differences between the organization and employee, unexpected or significant change at work or at home, and unanswered or unresolved frustrations.
(2) Psychological Factors
According to Spector (1997), the factors of particular interest causing workplace violence are frustration, revenge, and aggression. The role of frustration as a factor that can lead to violent behavior is a straightforward item. Events or frustrators that work to either intentionally or unintentionally block achievement of a goal will lead to frustration. Goals can run the gambit from getting a raise, getting promoted, to achieving stability in one’s job in an effort to adequately support a family. It is the range of reaction or response to the frustrator that makes it interesting to look into. The range may be from mild disappointment to outright rage toward one or more targets. A target can be an object, other employees, or the company itself.
In another research by Baron and Neuman (1997) trying to identify the triggers of frustration, revenge, and aggression, they believed that, as organizations battle to remain competitive in the market, they resort to survival techniques that are often harmful to employees. In an effort to get leaner and meaner, organizations resort to processes such as reduction in force (RIF) where long time employees are sometimes forced out and the remaining employees are left feeling apprehensive about their future with the organization. After the RIF, the remaining workers must often pick up the remaining work in an effort to increase efficiency. (Cannon et al., 1995) The sudden change in how workers are treated often is a cause for alarm that the organization is no longer loyal to them. When applied inappropriately, the changes that organizations go through can foster a more aggressive workplace. This aggression is preceded by frustration, stress and emotional disturbances. Any of these can definitely lead to a violent episode.
And finally putting both factors together (Workplace factors & Psychological Factors), In attempting to identify the cause or causes of violent workplace episodes, Kelleher (1996), Spector (1997), Baron & Neuman (1997), all used factors that are related to some extent. The nine elements listed by Kelleher can be used to explain the factors driven by the work environment given by Spector, Baron & Neuman. Kelleher’s nine elements go to the core of the problem when trying to devise strategies to mitigate workplace violence. The beauty of the use of frustration, revenge and aggression will come into play in the instance where you have a supervisor or manager that cannot for whatever reason understand or appreciate the value of Kelleher’s elements first hand. Take for example a supervisor who was the one of the reasons behind the sudden layoff of a specific employee due to the organization decision to apply a reduction in force (RIF), one of Kelleher’s nine elements (unexpected or significant change at work). Such a supervisor may very well relate to revenge and aggression -similar to what happened in the DaimlerChrysler case- since those actions have clear and present consequence that may force the supervisor and the whole organization to modify the method of dealing with personnel when it comes to layoff or termination. I believe that the elements that affect the work environment and those that are driven by the work environment should always be looked at and discussed in tandem to ensure a complete understanding of the workers and management perspective of the working environment as the problems are being reconciled. Altogether, the combined factors will examine a situation from different angles. In regards to the psychological factors, Cannon et al. (1995) states that the goal is for supervisors to recognize troubled employees and refer them to appropriate counseling. Beyond the human equation, and before the psychological problems, an equally important goal is to eliminate or reduce the environmental factors. 3 List of Alternatives

Given the potential liability caused by dangerous employees and work environments, what can an employer do to reduce the risk of workplace violence? Actually, the organization here must focus on three major elements from those most noted by various researchers namely: (1) Employment
Process (Kelleher, 1996), (2) Termination process (Kelleher, 1996), and (3) Security Measures (Kelleher,
1996).
I believe handling such elected elements will create a number of alternatives of great help to prevent workplace violence in the cases similar to (DaimlerChrysler and Lockheed Martin).
The alternatives are:
1. To reevaluate and enhance the Employment Process (Kelleher, 1996), focusing on Preemployment screening and Background checks.
2. To reevaluate and enhance the Termination process (Kelleher, 1996), so HR and responsible parties from the management team:

Know how conduct termination.
Know when to conduct termination.
Have an appropriate place to terminate.
Have the appropriate people in attendance.

3. To enhance Security Measures (Kelleher, 1996) by evaluating current vulnerabilities.

4 Evaluate Alternatives

At this section I will provide more details about how to implement each alternative then evaluate its efficiency in help preventing workplace violence in DaimlerChrysler and Lockheed Martin cases.

(1) Employment Process
This alternative covers the process of selecting new employees while giving a considerable attention to candidate personality and psychological state, where interviewers are requested to conduct interviews that allow an evaluator to determine the true personality of applicants. Since personality characteristics remain consistent over the lifetime of most healthy individuals, a pattern of behavior can be discerned. Have a thorough background check conducted to evaluate past employment history, criminal record, education, experience, training, military service, credit history, and inquiries regarding general character and reputation. The thorough background check would lay the foundation for a complete review.
I believe that adopting this approach is quite essential for preventing violence in both
DaimlerChrysler and Lockheed Martin cases, as the best preventive action is to avoid to hiring
Violence-Prone Individuals.
Violence-Prone Individuals. Most of us have heard the term "Type A personality." Typically, it is used to describe someone who is extremely driven, meticulous, detail oriented, and narrowly focused on achieving certain goals, no matter what. But "Type A" is merely the tip of the iceberg for the violence- prone individual. For example, employees at a computer software company in a Detroit suburb reported a co-worker who claimed to have gotten a military style haircut "for when I go psycho" .The employee also threatened to kill one of his managers. Needless to say, the company quickly terminated this employee and took several precautions to prevent a violent situation at or after his termination meeting. Clearly, this employee had problems that needed to be addressed immediately.
In other cases, are the signs as clear? They can be. Generally speaking, a violence-prone or destructive individual will display some or all of the characteristics listed below:
 Highly impatient; hypersensitive and hyper-reactive to even the smallest issues.
 Unreasonably judgmental; has rigid and righteous standards by which everyone else will fall short.  Highly suspicious (bordering on paranoid); often has an "it's me against the big, bad world" attitude.  Preoccupied by a need to control everything around himself or herself.
 Creates unrealistic goals and timeframes.
 Believes he or she is entitled to break the rules and, therefore, should be immune from consequences.  Engages in intimidation of others through extremely aggressive behavior or by constantly ridiculing or demeaning others.
 Has sharp and dramatic mood swings,
 Constantly allows himself or herself to be bullied and picked on by others.
 Has history of violence, substance abuse or problems dealing with authority.
 Is preoccupied with or owns a large number of weapons.
 May have been subject to a recent traumatic event, such as an adverse employment action or domestic violence, or to recent or frequent disputes with supervisor or co-workers.
(2) Termination process
Human Resources personnel should be mindful that the termination process can be a dangerous undertaking. They should treat employees being terminated with respect, sensitivity, and dignity.
Standards used to terminate employees should be applied equally. If possible avoid terminating when an employee is undergoing other stressful life situations such as divorce and death in the family. Make it a policy to have at least two members of management and in some cases a member of security present at the termination proceedings. Be ready for the proceedings, complete actions such as collecting keys, badges, parking permit, and company equipment. After the proceedings change passwords as necessary. Handle the process in a confidential manner and use multiple concurring opinions of members who are sensitive to the impact of terminations. When possible management should provide post-employment and outplacement support after termination, this support may help relieve the emotions that are bound to be present during a termination.
I believe that adopting this approach is quite essential for preventing violence in the
DaimlerChrysler case, where the workplace violence action has been done by a former employee, and it was mainly a revenge desire, which lead him to decide killing his supervisors whom he might believe where the reason behind his layoff.
Actually it is very important that the appropriate personnel will be invited during termination to ensure the safety of all meeting attendants. The Addition of the termination investigation should help to relieve some anxiety by giving a little assurance to the employee that personnel other than the immediate supervisors looked into the proceedings.
(3) Security Measures
It is highly important for an organization preparing a workspace violence plan, to be able to identify potential threats and vulnerabilities. The organization must develop and implement a security plan, and educate the workforce on this security plan. And actually this plan must address more than one type of security hazards causing workplace violence, including:
 Workplace security hazards from violence by strangers
 Workplace security hazards from violence by customers or clients
 Workplace security hazards from violence by co-workers
 Workplace security hazards from violence by personal relations
I believe that adopting this approach is highly crucial for preventing violence in both
DaimlerChrysler and Lockheed Martin cases, as both incidents occurred due to security shortfalls in dealing with violence by co-workers (current/or former). i.e. In the DaimlerChrysler, there is no logical reason to allow a former employee -which must be treated as stranger in this case- to accesses an assembly plant, which is mainly a staff only location, where no clients or strangers are allowed to access the place, not mentioning that he was holding a double-barrel shotgun under his coat!.
Similarly, another security shortfall is obvious in the Lokheed Martin case, as the violent person was a current employee who left in the middle of an ethics meeting, and went to his car, and came back with several guns, without being observed by any of the security staff in the parking or by the company gate, and I’m not even mentioning here being detected by any advanced devices or cameras, I’m just expecting that he must be recognized when he is entering the company carrying several guns, not a single gun hidden under his coat!
In this case it is highly important to perform periodic inspections to identify and evaluate workplace security hazards and threats of workplace violence focusing on violence by co-workers, this must cover:  How well our organization’s anti-violence policy has been communicated to employees, supervisors and managers.
 How well our organization’s management and employees communicate with each other.
 How well our employees, supervisors and managers know the warning signs of potential workplace violence.
 Access to, and freedom of movement within, the workplace by non-employees, specifically recently discharged/terminated employees.
 Frequency and severity of employee-reported threats of physical or verbal abuse by managers, supervisors or other employees.
 Any prior violent acts, threats of physical violence, verbal abuse, property damage or other signs of strain or pressure in the workplace.
 Employee disciplinary and discharge procedures.

5 Recommendations

From my point of view, I find all the workplace violence prevention alternatives listed in the previous section are quite essential for almost all types of business organizations, in addition to other alternatives such as: Intervention Program for counseling and crisis management, Education and Training about conflict resolution, reporting threats, and improving interpersonal skills.
However, if we are going to give the priority for only two alternatives to start an enhanced workspace violence prevention plan, I would rather select the first and third alternatives, because considering the conditions of both DaimlerChrysler and Lockheed Martin cases, the problem started from the immature hiring process and ended by the security system shortfalls.
In conclusion, the first alternative (To reevaluate and enhance the Employment Process, focusing on Pre-employment screening and Background checks) is recommended, because the best preventive action to avoid potential violence by Violence-Prone Individuals is not hiring them. And the third alternative (To enhance Security Measures by evaluating current vulnerabilities) is also recommended, because committing an even moderate security plan, would have simply prevented accessing the workplace entire building with killing weapons.