Workplace violence can come from colleagues, customers, criminals and others. Unfortunately, all of it takes a toll on organizations. Whether it’s on the rise remains to be seen, but workplace violence is certainly getting a fair amount of media attention these days.
Case in point, the Fort Hood shootings that took place in November last year gained media coverage yet again on Friday when the Pentagon released a report suggesting systematic failures within the military to prevent it.
Now, I recognize the value in understanding the failures, but I think it’s more important to ask: How can workplace violence be prevented?
That’s one of the questions that I, and several of my peers, will be answering on Wednesday, January 20th, 1-2 pm CST as part of a roundtable discussion on violence in the workplace.
We’ll all be looking at the issue from different angles, but my bet is that all of us agree that there are steps businesses can – and should – take to protect themselves and their employees. Naturally, I believe that employee assistance programs (EAP) are key to prevention.
One of the things that struck me about the Fort Hood situation was the following exert from an NPR report titled, “Walter Reed Officials Asked: Was Hasan Psychotic?”:
“… Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program.”
Too difficult? Failures to address concerns and manage the situation with Maj. Nidal Hasan are intolerable. Sadly, this kind of thinking is all too common. But, Hasan killed 13 and wounded dozens in the worst mass shooting on a military base in the U.S. That makes “denial” unacceptable.
Now, I have read that Fort Hood has an EAP, which is an excellent risk management tool. But you must promote your EAP and its many prevention benefits in order to reap the rewards.
Perhaps we all need to do a better job educating supervisors and employees about the benefits of employee assistance and when you should make that call.
And, that means making sure that your EAP is high-touch and highly visible. This is not the place to be “penny wise and pound foolish”. Besides, the cost of an EAP is usually less than ½% of the total cost of the health insurance premium.
So what are the benefits of an EAP? First, it is a confidential service available to individual employees when they want personal help. Second, EAP is available to employees that are concerned about a co-worker – and it sounds like there were a lot of them in this case. Third, EAP is available to counsel HR and help manage at-risk employees when needed.
It’s never “easy” to deal with employee relations issues, but EAP can help support you and provide guidance.
EAP can also help employees cope with a tragedy like Fort Hood after-the-fact by providing on-site group and individual counseling so that the employees and the organization can move forward; but it’s my hope that all organizations focus on prevention first.
Remember: EAP is confidential and can help. If you’re concerned about someone you work with, don’t be afraid to call. That call could help save lives.
Tags: Bernie Dyme, EAP, employee assistance, Fort Hood, workplace violence
January 20th, 2010 at 4:33 am
Profiling has failed us; we don’t need profiling to identify Individuals like the Christmas-Day Bomber or the Fort Hood Shooter! There is a better solution!
Virtually all media outlets are discussing whether we should be profiling all Arab Muslims; I will in the one-page explain why we don’t need profiling. Over 15 years ago, we at the Center for Aggression Management developed an easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior indicators exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.
The Problem
Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.
The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” – all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.
All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:
1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!
2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.
3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh
The Solution
Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.
The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.
As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?
Visit our blog at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Thanks for your comment. I don’t want to get into the whole profiling issue although certainly you bring up some very interesting points. You discussion however, about using an approach that tries to determine the behavior and intent of an individual who might be about to commit an act of violence or terrorism is excellent. That is my point with respect to EAP. An EAP is and should be available to help employers and managers try to identify employees who might be exhibiting these behaviors or “signs” of trouble and get them to an EAP counselor who can get them help in dealing with their aggressive (or other) feelings. Further, for managers, we can help them learn how to better communicate and create positive working atmospheres and relationships.