Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Myths, Realities, and Effective Practice in Addressing Violence in the Workplace Ronald Schouten, MD, JD Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School Director, Law & Psychiatry Service, Massachusetts General Hospital President, KeyPeople Resources, Inc. ©2007 Ronald Schouten, MD, JD 1 It’s Been a Bad April • Apr 2, 2007 1:15 pm US/Pacific 2 Dead In University Of Washington Shooting • Official: UW didn't follow policy in staffer's death By Associated Press Apr 06, 2007 - 11:43:27 pm PDTSEATTLE -- A woman staffer who died in a murdersuicide at her University of Washington office could have been moved to a different building or assigned heavier police patrols had officials followed school policies, an administrator says. • Sheriff: Michigan office shooting kills 1, injures 2 POSTED: 6:52 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007 2 April 16, 2007 Gunman, 32 others killed in Va. shooting 3 Copy Cats and More • Bomb Threats Plague Central Florida Schools POSTED: 11:43 am EDT April 21, 2007 • Gunman Kills NASA Worker and Himself UPDATED: 12:09 pm EDT April 21, 2007Gunman Published: April 21, 2007 HOUSTON, April 20 — A contract worker brandishing a revolver took control of part of a Johnson Space Center building on Friday afternoon, and killed a hostage and then himself after a standoff with the police. April 21, 2007, 9:33PM Police: Poor review set off NASA gunman 4 The Faces of Workplace Violence 5 The Faces of Workplace Violence Rebecca Griego 6 Agenda • The impact of workplace trauma • What we know (and don’t know) about workplace violence, victims, and perpetrators • Approaches to prevention, threat assessment, and management of high risk situations 7 Scope of Our Discussion • The workplace/school distinction • Physical aggression or threats of physical harm • Bullying and harassment as behaviors lying on a continuum leading up to physical aggression or threats 8 The Impact of Threats and Violent Acts at Work 9 Legal/Administrative Implications • OSHA General Duty Clause Sec. 5 (a)(1): civil & criminal penalties; evidence in civil claims • Workers’ compensation claims – If violence is work related – Stress/psychiatric claims – Injury based claims • Negligence claims – Hire – Retention – Supervision 10 Legal/Administrative Implications • Disability discrimination claims, e.g. university cases • Defamation, invasion of privacy • HIPAA and other breach of confidentiality claims • Potential liability for failing to have a disaster plan: – OSHA requirements – Failing to plan is planning to fail: liability for poor or absent disaster planning 11 The Impact of Threats and Violent Acts at Work • General – Physical injury – Psychological impact • • • • • New symptoms Exacerbation of pre-existing conditions Disruption of assumed sense of safety Suspicion and loss of cohesion Decreased productivity • Northwestern Life Study (1993) – 79% of those attacked at work had subsequent psychological problems – 40% experienced disruption of work life – 28% had a physical injury or became ill – 15% had no negative effect 12 Impact of Hoaxes or Perceived Risks • Acute Psychological Effects of Suspected Bioterrorism (Mason & Lyons) – 13 employees who believed they had been exposed to anthrax spores – Definite anxiety symptoms in 45% one week after the threat was cleared 13 The Knowledge Base for Threat Assessments 14 Defining Workplace Violence • NIOSH: Workplace Violence is any physical assault, threatening behavior or verbal abuse occurring in the work setting. It includes, but is not limited to, beatings, stabbings, suicides, shootings, rapes, attempted suicides, psychological trauma, threats such as obscene phone calls, an intimidating presence, and harassment of any nature, such as being followed, sworn at or shouted at. 15 Defining Violence • Targeted violence - Predatory, planned Aimed at a specific individual or institution Includes acts of terrorism, whether or not politically motivated • Impulsive violence - May be specific or nonspecific Victim may be unintended 16 Defining Threats • Types - Express or implied Direct or contingent - Organization Self Others • To physically harm: 17 Threats • Purposes: - Self defense Intimidation Retaliation Manipulation/Extortion Disruption Promote ideology Personal satisfaction/entertainment 18 Myth vs. Reality • #1: People “just snap.” • Reality – With hindsight, and some investigation, we can almost always identify a pattern of deteriorating behavior, threats, etc. leading up to the action. – Perceptions that the violent behavior is a new development for the perpetrator are the result of people either not knowing the perpetrator or not being aware of what others know. 19 Myth vs. Reality • #2: Violence and threats are irrational • Reality – Both tend to be chosen as a means to accomplish an end when no other methods appear to be available. – They tend to work, at least in the short term, e.g. • Disgruntled workers and their effect on management • “You’d better watch it.” • Terrorism – They may represent rational decisions made on the basis of irrational beliefs 20 Myth vs. Reality • #3: Workplace violence has been growing in frequency since the early 1990s • Reality – A total of 564 workplace homicides was recorded in 2005 (up from 559 in 2004). – However, workplace suicides were sharply lower in 2005, dropping 14 percent to a series low of 177 fatalities. – Total workplace homicides of all types have dropped approximately 50% since 1994. 21 #3 (cont’d) 22 23 Myth vs. Reality • #4: Current and former co-workers pose the greatest risk of workplace violence • Reality – Since data have been gathered, the majority of workplace homicides have been committed by outsiders engaged in attempted robbery or other crime. (Type I) – Current and former co-workers (Type III) have consistently been responsible for 5-13% 24 The Four Types of Workplace Violence • • • • % of homicides Type I: Criminal Intent (~75%) Type II: Customer/Client (~5%) Type III: Worker on worker (~12%) Type IV: Personal relationship (~8%) 25 Non-fatal Assaults • • The OSHA problem: under-reporting 1993-1999: (BJS; Mark Lies, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw 2005) – 94% of workplace violence incidents involved simple – – – or aggravated assaults 52% of workplace violence victims failed to report the crime to the police Women less likely to report than men 1999: 27% of employees who were physically assaulted in the workplace failed to report to anyone 26 Myth vs. Reality • #5: Research studies have established profiles of perpetrators of violence at work and school. • Reality – There have been no scientific studies of workplace homicide perpetrators – US Secret Service Studies of school shooters and presidential assassins have shown that there is no definitive profile – For any low incidence phenomenon, like workplace violence or suicide, even very sensitive tests result in an unacceptably high rate of false positives, i.e. overprediction. 27 The Mad Bomber and the Origins of Profiling 28 The Olympic Park Bombing 29 #5 (cont’d) • Profiles have the problem of both false positives (over predicting who may be violent) and false negatives (missing those who do not fit the profile but are at risk. • Empirically-based research has identified risk factors for non-fatal violence. 30 Myth vs. Reality • #6: There are no profiles, so we can’t assess risk. • Reality – Those who do act often share common characteristics, although the same characteristics may be present in a significant portion of the population – Utility of investigating risk factors • Heightened awareness • Inform management strategy during an incident • Determine level of risk, rather than predicting – Risk factors have been identified 31 The Violence Formula • Violence is the product of : – Individual variables (personality traits and illness) – Environmental variables (whether the environment promotes or dissuades violence) – Situational variables (acute and chronic stress): FINAL • • • • • Financial Intoxication Narcissistic injury Acute or chronic illness Losses 32 Aggressive and Violent Employees: Who Are These People? • One description (Jockin,et al 2001) – Sample of 489 employed men (32-36) asked about involvement in workplace aggression and conflict – Involvement correlated with: • • • • • Past antisocial behavior Alcohol abuse Tendency to stress reactions Aggressiveness Low self control – Factors modified by perceived victimization 33 Validated Individual Risk Factors for Perpetrators Include • Unsatisfied by treatment from supervisor (Baron et al., 1999; Cole et al., 1997) • Younger age (Baron et al., 1999; Warren et al., 1999) • Male sex (Baron et al., 1999; Warren et al., 1999) • Union membership (Baron et al., 1999) • Being laid off (Catalano et al., 1993) • Trait anger (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) • Thinks revenge is justified (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) • Tends to blame other people for things (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) • Previous exposure to aggressive cultures (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) • History of anti-social behavior (Jockin et al., 2001) • Alcohol abuse (Jockin et at., 2001) • History of criminal behavior (Warren et al., 1999) 34 Validated Risk Factors for Organizations • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pay cuts or freezes (Baron & Neuman , 1996) Use of part-time employees (Baron & Neuman , 1996) Changes in management (Baron & Neuman , 1996) Increased diversity in workforce (Baron & Neuman , 1996) Computer monitoring of employee-performance (Baron & Neuman, 1996) Reengineering (Baron & Neuman, 1996) Budget cuts (Baron & Neuman, 1996) Deteriorating physical workplace environment (Baron & Neuman, 1996) Workplace located in city (Baron et al., 1999) Employment in the industry is unexpectedly low (Catalano et al., 1993) Organization faces low work-group harmony (Cole et al., 1997) Conducting terminations with more than one employer present (Karl & Hancock, 1999) Conducting terminations on a Monday or Tuesday (Karl & Hancock, 1999) 35 Myth vs. Reality • #7: Mental illness is the most significant risk factor for violence • Reality – Absent active psychotic symptoms, the risk of violence for mentally ill individuals (excluding substance abuse) is no higher than for demographically similar members of the same community who have never been treated 36 #7 (cont’d) • Individuals most at risk – Psychotic disorders – History of Oppositional Defiant Disorder as children, Antisocial Personality Disorder as adults 37 #7 (cont’d) • Psychotic symptoms most related to violence: threat/control override symptoms – Symptoms which involve overriding of internal self-controls by external factors – Symptoms which imply a specific threat of harm from others: How often have you felt that there were people who wished to do you harm? 38 #7 (cont’d) Substance Abuse as a Risk Factor Self report of violence in previous year: DX % None 2 OCD 11 Bipolar/mania 11 Panic disorder 12 Major depression 12 Schizophrenia 13 Cannabis use/dependence 19 Alcohol use/dependence 25 Other use/dependence 35 39 The Role of Anger • As part of a disorder - Anger attacks and depression Anger and psychosis Anger and personality disorders • As a personality trait 40 Myth vs. Reality • #8: The main issue in threat assessment is on whether an actual threat has been made • Reality – – – – Those who act often never threaten the subject Those who threaten often do not act Those who act may issue threats to third parties Important to distinguish targeted violence vs. impulsive violence 41 Myth vs. Reality • #9: “It will never happen to us.” vs. “It will definitely happen to us.” • Realities of risk perception – Probability neglect: • When strong emotions are involved, people focus on the severity of the outcome, rather than the probability that the outcome will occur • We tend to overestimate the likelihood of low probability events, and underestimate the likelihood of higher probability events – Risk appreciation factors • • • • • Availability of an example Identification with the victims Nearness to the event Nature of the trauma Perception that the risk can be reduced 42 Myth vs. Reality • #10: These situations are best handled by a single person. • Reality – These are complicated problems; no two are exactly alike – No one field has the requisite knowledge and insight to sort these all out – Information, the decision making process, and organization are key – Team approach provides the highest yield 43 Effective Strategies in Assessing and Managing Threats and Violence 44 Risk Assessment and Management • Many moving parts to the problem • Focus on behavior rather than diagnosis • It’s a clinical management problem that requires – Obtaining as accurate a history as possible – Assessment of risk factors – An understanding of how to modify the risk factors to decrease the risk of harm to individuals (including the subject of concern) and the organization 45 Effective Strategies • Workplace violence and crisis management policies in every organization • Threat management teams – Outside consultation available as needed – Incident Command System model • Liaison with local law enforcement • Published resources – ASIS International (2005): Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Guideline – ATAP (2005): Violence Risk Assessment Guideline 46 Early Interventions to Head Off Problems • • • • • Detecting conflict Conflict resolution strategies Stress management Does this employee need help? – Talk to them – Clinical referrals, e.g. EAP, company physician – Expectations for the clinical referral Fitness for duty evaluations 47 Counseling the Problem Employee • • • • • • • • Be aware of, but don’t anticipate, the worst. Empathy Respect: humiliation as a risk factor Limit setting Honesty Generosity Flexibility Privacy 48 Response to an Ongoing Event • Leadership is key – Visible – Communications • Information: specific, actionable, accurate • Priorities: safety, health, food/water, family contact • Managing the perceived threat – Safety first – Understanding the motivation of the threat – Perception of victimization is key 49 The Aftermath: Responding to Victims • Threat or other perceived danger – – – – – – – Empathy Setting limits on demands Education vis a vis risk perception Honesty Generosity Flexibility Privacy 50 The Aftermath: Responding to Victims • Actual violent event – Physical safety comes first – Communication • Employees in touch with families • Media • Customers and investors – Honesty • What is known • What was done • Further follow up – Arranging for follow-up services • Internal • External 51 Post-Event Response • What do people need to avoid long-term psychological consequences? – The prevalence of resilience – Efficacy of community support – The CISD/M controversy 52 Conclusion • • • • Greatest risk of violence is from outside The dangers of profiles Risk assessment as a process Identification and management requires: • Policies • Enforcement • Awareness of risk factors • Flexibility • Willingness to respond • Ability to respond • Cooperation • Recognition that it’s rarely easy • Team approach ©2007 Ronald Schouten, MD, JD 53