A previous article at this site examined general threat management concepts and some of the general dynamics that occur in workplace violence. Companies and organizations need to have an organized approach to this problem. A good program that addresses workplace violence should have:

• early detection of a disturbed individual;
• assessment of that person's current mental and emotional level on a scale of violent behavior;
• a plan to forestall violence through a specific combination of communications, company and community resources and the legal system.

An important component is to designate who is part of a workplace violence Incident Management Team (IMT). The IMT should consist at a minimum of a: 1) senior management representative, 2) a senior human resource manager, 3) a senior security manager, and 4) a legal representative familiar with labor and employment law and litigation. Including a non-management employee on the IMT would also be a good idea. The IMT should be authorized to commit whatever company assets and personnel are necessary to resolve the incident since delays could seriously slow the process and significantly increase the risk of violence occurring.

Since early detection is critical, a clear written policy should encourage employees to report any threats or incidents of violent behavior which they observe or are informed about to a Designated Management Representative (DMR), regardless of the relationship between the instigator and the victim. The DMR then takes the steps necessary to verify the information, makes an initial assessment and documents any decision involving future action. The DMR should also enter the information in a database for future retrieval and trend analysis.

The DMR should not be the employee's immediate supervisor or manger because experience indicates that important events leading up to a major incident may go unreported, creating an unnecessary level of risk. This seems to occur because coworkers either do not want to cause trouble for the individual making the threat by talking to a supervisor or manager directly, or do not want to take any action which will jeopardize themselves. This avoidance behavior is so common in situations of potential violence that when an instigator has finally been psychologically assessed and found to be an immediate danger to self or others, fellow employees often come forward with previously unreported incidents of verbal or physical threats made by the individual. This indicates that the individual had for some time been exploring violence as an option. Interestingly, instigators who have survived an incident have said that if someone had been able to listen, understand and work with them, they would not have acted violently. This means early detection and intervention is critical to avoid violence.

Once a potentially disturbed individual is identified, there should be clear guidelines for assessing the emotional state of the individual with particular attention being paid to the potential for violence. This evaluation should also include research into any past history of stressful events (death, divorce, job loss, financial pressure, etc.) and reactions to them. Researchers in this area agree that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Interviews with the individual should be conducted. For in person interviews, the interview site should not be one normally seen or used by the victims, witnesses or instigator. There should be clear guidelines as to when an interview site needs to be secured to reduce the risk of violence and how this will be accomplished. This should also include a hostage contingency plan. Regardless of the instigator's affiliation with the company, it is always recommended that trained personnel capable of assessing the potential for violence interview the instigator.

After the initial interviews the DMR or the IMT should conduct an complete case review. All information should be weighed against the violence scale and a decision reached on whether only to monitor the instigator's behavior for additional cues or to continue gathering information for further assessment. Available security options should also be determined at this point.

After further information gathering, it must be determined what action, if any, will be taken. Such action may include:

• Further medical or psychological evaluation;
• Demotion;
• Reassignment;
• Suspension;
• Termination;
• Obtaining a restraining order;
• Pursuit of criminal charges.

After termination, there should be plans in place to deal with the possibility that the instigator will make an attempt to return. Should return be considered likely to disrupt the workplace, security should be heightened. Also, there should be plans to determine if the level of needed security covers the likelihood that the individual will arrive with a weapon. For this reason there should be a protective team in place with the responsibility of monitoring and controlling access to the company site and acting as a contact and liaison with local law enforcement agencies. Plans to monitor the ongoing actions of the instigator might be considered prudent.

Companies should have a reaction response plan which sets procedures for the security force and other employees to report a sighting of the instigator (or other potentially violent individual) on or near the property. The plan should specify the various levels of response by security personnel, depending upon whether they meet the instigator inside or outside the building; whether or not the instigator is hostile; is openly armed or has used a weapon on company property. Any planned intervention should start with the least confrontational tactics, and only escalate up to the possible use of weapons if necessary.

By having policies and procedures that allow for early detection of possible violent incidents reduces the likelihood of needing to implement procedures for dealing with a violent individual. This is in the long-term interest of both companies and employees.