Workplace violence and security: are there lessons for peacemaking?

• Author: Zollers, Frances E.

ABSTRACT

The workplace can serve as a microcosm for global peace initiatives. The many facets of workplace violence provide various lessons for peacemaking. There are a variety of types and causes of workplace violence. There are also many techniques for dealing with workplace violence. Modern management practices parallel the values that are conducive to peace. Corporate structures that promote trust, participation, and dignity are transportable to the local, national, and global markets for peace.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DIMENSIONS II. CAUSES III. RESPONSES A. Strategies Consistent With Positive Peace 1. Training 2. Communication 3. Dispute Resolution 4. Crisis Management Teams B. Strategies Consistent With Negative Peace 1. Profiling 2. Monitoring IV. BRINGING PEACEMAKING TO THE WORKPLACE V. BRINGING THE WORKPLACE TO PEACEMAKING VI. CONCLUSION **********

The workplace is often portrayed as a violent and scary place. (1) We are beset by media images of the employee gone berserk who shoots up an office or plant floor, killing and injuring co-workers. (2) We read accounts of the robbery that suddenly and inexplicably turns into a mass killing of employees and customers. (3) Workplace violence is seen as a major challenge for employers. (4) Gallons of ink have been devoted to analyzing the phenomenon and constructing prevention programs. Millions of dollars are spent on technology and consultants to treat this subject. (5) There are typologies of violent acts that occur at work, (6) profiles of the "typical" aggressor, (7) programs to combat workplace violence, checklists of equipment to buy, (8) and processes to undertake to prevent incidents from occurring. (9)

Alternatively, the workplace is presented as a peaceful village where diverse groups come together to work toward a common purpose and create an important exemplar of civil society. (10) The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between these extremes. Business organizations do not mirror perfectly a society or nation. Places of work do not wage war, nor do they provide for the general welfare, except insofar as they provide jobs and pay wages. Nevertheless, the workplace is a community in which people gather to further common objectives and with which its members identify. (11)

Most importantly, for our purposes, the workplace community is guided by external legal principles, internal policies and practices, and moral values; it develops a culture. Accordingly, comparisons between a workplace and a politically-based society may be sufficiently robust to justify examining as models for peace corporate structures and processes (12) designed to make the workplace secure. Moreover, an organization's response to workplace violence reflects the strength of its commitment to traditional liberal values such as privacy, transparency, and employee rights. (13) These values are recognized as critical to achieving sustainable peace. (14) Thus, lessons learned about peacemaking may be relevant to organizational efforts to deter workplace violence, in the same way that corporate security-enhancement strategies may be transferable to society.

This Article will examine the dimensions and causes of workplace violence. It will also inquire into current thinking regarding the methods, processes, and structures of preventing and treating this phenomenon, and the objections that may be leveled against such responses insofar as they infringe on workers' privacy and other rights. The events of September 11, 2001 have raised the stakes, (15) causing some employees to be more willing to accept encroachments on their personal freedom while others, especially over time, are less accepting. Nonetheless, if there are nuggets of peacemaking in these processes that are transportable beyond the workplace, it may be instructive to analyze them to determine whether they scale beyond the organization, locally, nationally, or globally.

1. DIMENSIONS

   This Article draws from others' work to define and categorize workplace violence in the sustainable peace context. (16) In this Section, this Article discusses that definition, presents a workplace violence typology developed by the Injury Prevention Research Center at the University of Iowa, and attempts to describe the scope of the issue.

   Headline-grabbing reports of murders committed by ex-employees are among the most extreme examples of workplace violence. (17) However, observers agree that many other behaviors should be so labeled. (18) The federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) definition of workplace violence includes conduct ranging from verbal threats to homicide, occurring within or away from the workplace. (19) Other proposed definitions are similarly broad in terms of conduct and consequences, encompassing physical, psychological, and property damage. (20) Thus, there is sufficient recognition that "workplace violence" goes beyond physical injury and death and includes threats, intimidation, harassment, and humiliation, and this Article embraces that broader definition. (21)

   A variety of approaches has been taken to categorizing violence in the workplace. (22) Most useful here is the typology developed by the Injury Prevention Research Center, which focuses on the relationship between the perpetrator's role with respect to the victim. (23) The first group of incidents (Type I) involves a stranger entering the workplace to commit a crime, killing or injuring employees in the process. (24) This is typified by the gas station or late-night diner robbery where employees are handling money and often working alone at the time of the incident. (25) The robbery turns into a homicide or assault when the perpetrator encounters resistance or wants to eliminate witnesses. (26) As illustrated by Figure 1, most incidents of workplace homicide fall into this category. (27)

   Type II incidents involve a customer or client who is legitimately on the premises at the time he kills or injures a worker. (28) This category's victims include health care workers, school teachers, police officers, and prison guards (29)--occupations that are often identified as being significantly at risk for experiencing workplace violence. (30)

   Type III is comprised of worker-on-worker incidents. (31) These include the occasions we read about in the news where a current or past employee kills or injures other employees--often out of revenge. (32) Unlike Type I and Type II crimes, those committed against co-workers are not more prevalent in some industries than in others. (33) More common incidents in this category, albeit less dramatic and newsworthy, are threats, intimidation, and harassment by co-workers. (34)

   Type IV violent incidents grow out of a personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. (35) The assailant knows his victim to be at work and enters the workplace to harm him or her over an issue unrelated to work. (36) This is the situation where a spouse, for example, comes to the workplace to do harm to his or her partner because of issues unrelated to work. (37) Not surprisingly, this category affects more women than men. (38)

   This approach to categorization is helpful because it identifies applicable management responses by type. (39) As illustrated by Figure 2, measures taken to prevent incidents in one category may very well be unsuitable for the others. Insufficient understanding of workplace violence may cause businesses to misspend resources on prevention techniques that have little or nothing to do with the reality of actual or likely risks. (40)

   The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes annual figures for workplace homicides and assaults. (41) These data point to a decrease in crimes committed in the workplace, as illustrated by Figure 3.

   Derived from BLS data

   These data are out of synch with media reports suggesting that workplace violence is on the rise. (42) The relative proportions of various crimes also belies widely-held perceptions of the most common types of workplace violence. For example, homicides represented only 0.1% of workplace crimes during 1993-1999, while simple assaults represented 72.5% of these incidents. (43) These figures contrast sharply with the stereotypical scenario of the disgruntled employee exacting his toll on co-workers. To be sure, this instance shows up in the statistics, but does not occupy high rankings. (44)

   There are a number of possible reasons for these apparent contradictions. First, workplace homicides did, in fact, increase in the mid-1990s (45) before declining to their current level. Commentators observing the phenomenon in that time frame would have reported accurately that workplace homicide was on the rise. (46) Moreover, although rates are falling, workplace homicide remains the leading cause of work-related death for women, the second leading cause for men, and the fourth leading cause of work-related death overall. (47) Also, there is evidence suggesting that the proportion of workplace homicides perpetrated by co-workers may be rising. (48) Lastly, and more sinister in nature, it has been suggested that the "crisis" in workplace violence has been exaggerated by those who benefit when employers engage consultants and purchase equipment to stem the tide of violent incidents. (49)

   Regardless of the possible disconnect between perception and reality, reliable data do exist regarding the dimensions of criminal conduct in the workplace. (50) In addition to the BLS statistics noted above, (51) an important U.S. Department of Justice report, based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, describes criminal behavior in the workplace. (52) Defined broadly, however, workplace violence is difficult to quantify. Very little information is available about the incidence of non-criminal workplace violence behaviors. (53) Accordingly, we are unable to present an overall assessment of the scope of non-criminal workplace conduct. Available data, however, are...