What Are The Four Types Of Workplace Violence

Workplace violence is a relatively new field, with the first major study taking place in 1980. Recently, it has become a focus of research because of the increasing instances of workplace violence. Workplace violence is considered to be any violence resulting in the death or physical injury of an employee or business invitee. When people think of workplace violence, they often think of the violence that occurs just between co-workers, but workplace violence also includes violence between any business customer or other invitee and an employee. Workplace violence also includes the psychological abuse in the workplace that can eventually lead to stress or physical abuse.

The first major study of workplace violence was conducted in 1980 by the Southland Corporation to determine how it could minimize business robberies at its convenience stores. Another study was conducted in 1988 along these same lines, and it helped curb late-night robberies by improving security in convenience stores. From there, the study of workplace violence has grown to include the violence that takes place between co-workers as well. A study conducted by Northwestern National Life Insurance in 1993 determined the following: - Violence and harassment affect the health and productivity of workers. - A strong relationship exists between job stress and workplace harassment and violence. - Harassers are usually co-workers or bosses; attackers are more likely to be customers. - Improved interpersonal relations and effective preventative programs can result in lower levels of violence.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) began publishing studies which revealed that homicide was the leading cause of work-related deaths (1993). Many of these deaths occurred during robberies, and a majority of the people killed were women working in retail trades. In 1996, the Society of Human Resource Management focused their studies on violence in the workplace. These studies reported that 33% of human resource managers (in a study of 479) had experienced one incident of violence in the workplace, with employees attacking the victims 54% of the time. The reason most commonly identified for violence was personality conflicts between the people involved and family or marital problems of the offender. Eighty percent of the attacks were caused by males, and 60% of the time, a serious injury needing medical attention occurred.

A few businesses are more prone to workplace violence than others. It shouldn't surprise you that from 1993 to 1999, police officers were most likely to be victims of workplace violence; this has a lot to do with the nature of their jobs. Following police officers, those most susceptible to workplace violence include correctional officers, taxicab drivers, private security workers, and bartenders. In addition, a study of workplace violence at Pepsi-Cola, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut revealed that incidents of workplace violence occur often and commonly include threatening phone calls, fights between employees, and bomb threats. However, businesses with employee assistance programs (EAP's)—programs that help employees deal with outplacement, grievances, and harassment—are less likely to experience acts of workplace violence. Occupations with Highest Numbers of Homicides Note: Based on 1993 and 1995 to 1996 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.1998. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1993 to 96. Washington, District of Columbia: U.S. Department of Justice. Occupation of Victim Average Annual Number Sales 327 Executive/manager 154 Law enforcement 69 Security guard 60 Taxi driver/chauffeur 74 Truck driver 25

Although there is no single type of business especially prone to violence, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has identified government employees as the most likely to be victims of violent crimes. Federal, state, and local agencies are often targets of workplace violence, with postal employees suffering the highest number of fatalities-40, since 1986. Workplace violence is often caused by current or former employees who are disgruntled and seeking some sort of retribution, thus leaving no business immune from violence. The table below shows the victim-offender relationship in workplace homicides, with most being committed by strangers. Annual Workplace Homicide by Victim-Offender Relationship, 1993 to 1999 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2001. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Washington, District of Columbia: U.S. Department of Labor. Another common location for workplace violence is in health care settings. Hospital workers are often victimized by angry patients or patients' families. The violence in health care settings is most common in psychiatric wards, emergency rooms, waiting rooms, and geriatric unit Relationship Average Annual Number Percentage of Total Work association 899 100 Stranger 753 84 Work associate 103 11 Co-worker, former co-worker 67 7 Customer, client 36 4 Intimate 28 3 Husband 17 2 Boyfriend 10 1 Other relative 5 1 Other acquaintance 9 1

Sales (Correct) Taxi drivers Law enforcement Security guards

A United States Department of Justice study in 2001 revealed the following findings pertaining to workplace victimization: - Each year between 1993 and 1999, more than 2 million residents were victims of violent crimes while they were at work or on duty. - More than 1,900 workplace homicides occurred annually. - The most common type of workplace victimization was simple assault, with an estimated 1.4 million episodes occurring each year. residents also suffered 51,000 rapes and sexual assaults and approximately 84,000 robberies while they were at work. - Annually, more than 230,000 police officers were victims of nonfatal violent crimes while they were on duty. - About 40 percent of victims of nonfatal violence in the workplace reported that they knew their offenders. - Women were more likely than men to be victimized by someone they knew. - Approximately 12 percent of the nonfatal violent workplace crimes resulted in an injury to the victim. Of those injured, about half received medical treatment. - Intimates (current and former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends) were identified by the victims as the perpetrators of about 1 percent of all workplace violent crime.

In 2001, workplace violence was categorized into four types by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Type I: Criminal Intent The first category, Type I, is called criminal intent. In a Type I incident, the perpetrator: Is a stranger to the business and its employees Is usually committing a crime (robbery, shoplifting, trespassing) along with the violence Eighty-five percent of workplace homicides fall into the Type I category. Common locations for these incidents are banks, convenience stores, and service stations. Often, the assault of an employee usually coincides with a robbery at one of these locations. Type II: Employer Directed The Type II, category of workplace violence, called employer-directed incidents, are characterized by the following: - The perpetrator is a customer or a client of the worker. - The violent act generally occurs in conjunction with the worker's normal duties. - The risk of violence to some workers in this category (such as mental health workers and police) may be constant, even routine. - Typical victim of Type II violence are health care workers, schoolteachers, social workers, and bus drivers. These service providers generally become victim when, in the course of normal business, a customer or client becomes angry and violent. Type III: Worker-on-Worker The Type III category of workplace violence, called worker-on-worker incidents, includes incidents that typically come to mind when we think about workplace violence. But, in fact, they account for only 7% of workplace homicides and are not specific to a certain type business. Generally, this type of incident receives more media coverage that other types of workplace violence. In a Type III incident, more often than not: - The perpetrator is an employee or former employee. - The motivating factor is often one or a series of interpersonal or work-related disputes. - Managers or supervisors may be more likely to be victimized than regular employees because managers commonly handle situations in which disputes can arise and tempers can flare. Type IV: Domestic Violence Incidents in the Type IV category of workplace violence are related to domestic violence. Domestic violence has a variety of effects on the workplace, including high absenteeism and low productivity from the victim, or a long absence from work because the person is fleeing abuse. A large majority of the victims of Type IV violence are women. Sometimes the offender, who has no connections to the workplace whatsoever, will appear and engage in hostile behavior. Incidents can also arise between co-workers who are spouses. Depending on the nature of business, several of these categories of workplace violence may be relevant. All business are susceptible to Type IV incidents, while retail establishments may be more vulnerable to Type I (robbery) and Type III (co-worker disputes) and heath care setting may have a preponderance of Type II events.

Several instigators can spur an event of workplace violence. These factories generally lead up to the culmination of an actual violent incident. A traumatic event produces extreme anger and anxiety These feelings may be triggered by one event, such as losing a job or being denied a promotion, or a series of events over time, such as consistently low customer service ratings. The employee becomes consumed by the negative experience and starts blaming others for it The Employee is dealing with a lot of internal conflict and can't seem to get past the negative experience. This may go on for weeks or months. The employee seeks revenge for the experience In the final step of the sequence, the employee takes his/her anger out through violent actions, usually targeting a manager or other employee whom the offender blames for the problem.

A number of traumatic events can take place in the workplace (or out of the workplace) that can trigger the beginning of the sequence outlined on the last screen. One of the traumatic events that caused a lot of disruption during the 1990s was corporate downsizing. This occurs when corporations seek to control their costs by trimming their labor force, displacing workers and eliminating jobs.Studies of workplace homicides indicate that a great number of offenders had recently been laid off or terminated during downsizing. Many employees who have committed violent acts have experienced frustrations and complications in their lives previously. These frustrations may have built over many years and come out when triggered by an event at work. On the following screen is a list of potential contributing factors to the behavior of employees who commit violent acts. Contributing Factors to Workplace Violence: - Subject of grievances within the company - Awaiting disciplinary actions at the time of attack - Was passed over for a promotion - Was feeling a victim of favoritism - Job was recently terminated

There are some guidelines a company can follow while downsizing to avoid potential violence: - Practice responses to a range of emotions such as anger, shock, and silence; keep the meeting short. - Never say negative things to the terminated employee such as, "You are being let go because we need new blood." - Know the telephone numbers of security or have security personnel nearby. - Change computer passwords and secure credit cards and company cars immediately on termination. - Stress that upper management has approved the layoff decision.

Workplace violence and harassment can also be triggered or be an effect of job stress. This occurs when an employee feels that they - Lack control - Have little support from co-workers or managers - Lack steady employment - Lack healthy relationships with co-workers The employee may then express his/her anger or frustration in a violent manner if the stress goes undetected or unaddressed. Job stress can also be created by a constant pressure to please customers, a work setting where political and religious beliefs collide, or where employees from different backgrounds are forced to work together in a situation where they appreciate no future.

Some obvious warning signs may be indicators of potential violence, but other signs aren't so obvious. It is important to recognize these warning signs so that a company can prevent potential violence from occurring. Some of the most obvious warning signs are threatening phone calls, stalking, and constant attention that is unwanted by the receiving party. A psychological view of the potentially violent person can be developed to help assess the behavior of the person. This profile consists of three parts: - General characteristics of the violent worker - Characteristics of the employee who may be capable of murder - Characteristics of the nonviolent employee

In 1993, Anthony Baron developed a technique to help in the identification of employees who are most likely to commit murder in the workplace. Baron found that most employees who committed murder were white males between the ages of 25 and 40 and had a past history of violence for which they required some form of counseling. In general, workplace murderers have a tendency to be loners and appear withdrawn with a propensity toward angry outbursts and conflicts with other employees. Drug and alcohol abuse, marital problems, weapon ownership, and paranoia are also indicators of potential workplace murderers. Baron identified an 80% chance that the violent employee will be male, a 75% chance that the employee will be white, and a 90% chance that he will be in the age range of 25 to 50 years old. Workplace Murder: Characteristics There is a 90% probability that a workplace murderer will have one or more of the following characteristics: - History of violence - Evidence of psychosis - Evidence of erotomania - Evidence of chemical or alcohol dependence - Depression - Pattern of pathological blaming - Impaired neurological functioning - Elevated frustration level Interest in weapons - Evidence of personality disorder - Vocalization of violent intentions before a violent act - Evidence of strange or bizarre behavior over a period of time

To prevent violence in the workplace, managers and supervisors must be especially in-tune with their employees and the characteristics of problem employees. Here are several characteristics the managers should find out, that may indicate potential violence. Repeated tardiness and/or excessive absences This indicator is especially important if the person has generally been on time and reliable. This can suggest a low morale or personal problem. The need for increased supervision This may be a signal for help, especially if the employee is making consistent mistakes and has not required this type of supervision in the past. Reduced productivity A sudden drop in productivity should be recognized and dealt with immediately. Strained workplace relationships or conflicts with other employees If an employee is arguing with co-workers or displaying disruptive behavior, it's important to intervene because this type of behavior can escalate into violence.

Other characteristics that may indicate potential employee problems include: - Changes in health and hygiene - Radical changes in personality or dress - Disruptive antisocial behavior - Evidence of feelings of being victimized by the company, supervisors, or co-workers - Displays of unwarranted anger or sudden outbursts - Romantic obsession with another employee - Inability to take criticism - Taking up much of the supervisor's time with personal problems - Lack of concern for the safety of others - Lack of concern for company property and equipment - Complaints by co-workers or others regarding inappropriate behavior (such as sexual harassment and so on) - Becoming withdrawn or socially isolated from other workers

Do Do Not 1 Project calmness; move and speak slowly, quietly, and confidently. Generate hostility by using styles of communication such as apathy, brush-off, coldness, condescension, robotism, going strictly by the rules, or giving the runaround. 2 Be an empathetic listener; encourage the person to talk and then listen patiently. Reject all of the person's demands from the start. 3 Focus your attention on the other person to let him or her know you are interested in what he or she has to say. Pose in challenging stances such as standing directly opposite the person with hands on hips or arms crossed. Avoid any physical contact, finger pointing or long periods of eye contact. 4 Maintain a relaxed yet attentive posture and position yourself at a right angle rather than directly in front of the other person. Make sudden movements that can be perceived as threatening. 5 Acknowledge the person's feelings; indicate that you can understand that he or she is upset. Challenge, threaten, or dare the individual. Never belittle the person or make him or her feel foolish. 6 Ask for small, specific favors such as asking the person to move to a quieter area. Criticize the person or act impatient. 7 Establish ground rules if unreasonable behavior persists; calmly describe the consequences of any violent behavior. Attempt to bargain with a threatening individual. 8 Use delaying tactics to give the person time to calm down. For example, offer a drink of water (in a disposable cup). Try to make the situation less serious than it is. 9 Be reassuring and point out choices; break big problems into smaller, more manageable ones. Make false statements or promises that you cannot keep. 10 Accept criticism in a positive way. When a complaint might be true, use statements such as "You are probably right" or "It was my fault." If the criticism seems unwarranted, ask clarifying questions. Try to impart technical or complicated information when emotions are high. 11 Ask for the person's recommendations; repeat what you believe the person is requesting of you. Take sides or agree with distortions. 12 Arrange yourself so that a visitor cannot block your access to an exit. Invade the individual's personal space. Make sure there is enough space between you and the person.

Employees and customers are not the only contributing factors to potential victimization. Research on business risk predictors has identified several other conditions as potential risk factors for business victimizations. The following questions serve as a guide for determining whether or not a business may be at risk: If a manger or owner answers yes to several of these questions, he/she should think seriously about addressing the specific problems, whether it means relocating the business or increasing security throughout the business. Business risk predictors can help an owner assess the potential legal problems he/she could have in the future. - Has the business experienced previous criminal intrusions? - Does the business operate during evening hours? - Is there a public access (a number of public access points) to the business? - Is alcohol served on the premises? - Are there several points of uncontrolled entry into the business? - Is there uncontrolled access to parking areas or structures? - Does the business deal in cash transactions? - Have any employees complained of harassment or assaults by other employees, customers, or other people? - Does the business offer public entertainment? - Have incidents of crime (robbery, assaults, gang activity) occurred in the area immediately surrounding the business? - Is the business located near an entrance to a freeway or an interstate highway? - Is the business located in a metropolitan area? - Have firearms or other deadly weapons been reported on the premises? - Have there been reports by employees or others regarding loitering on or near the premises? - Have there been reports of illegal drug use by employees or others on the premises? - Have there been physical confrontations or fights between employees or others? - Have any discharged or disgruntled employees made threats?

Another form of workplace harassment that is related to workplace violence is bullying. Bullying is a type of aggression against a co-worker that may not involve physical contact or sexual suggestions. Bullying is a form of harassment that doesn't have any of the legal protections that sexual harassment does. Bullying doesn't necessarily lead to violence, but it does lead to victimization. The chart on the following screen lists a variety of different tactics used by bullies. Sometimes these tactics can instigate a violent response or result in lower productivity and a negative work environment for the victim. Bullying can be dynamic, depending on the workplace and those involved. Female bullies have a tendency to target other women 87% of the time, while men choose women as targets 71% of the time. Women bully in a more subtle way; men can be blatant and aggressive 1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71%) 2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating, and was clearly showing hostility (68%) 3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly") in meeting (64%) 4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others (64%) 5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the group (61%) 6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61%) 7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence (58%) 8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different "standard" for the target (57%) 9. Started or failed to stop destructive rumors or gossip about the person (56%) 10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55%) 11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either socially or physically (54%) 12. Publicly displayed "gross", undignified, but not illegal, behavior (53%) 13. Yelled, screamed, and threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a person (53%) 14. Stole credit for work done by others (47%) 15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's performance (46%) 16. "Insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary commands (46%) 17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate privately or publicly (45%) 18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45%) 19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, accent or language, disability (44%) 20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44%) 21. Made undoable demands -- workload, deadlines, duties -- on person singled out (44%) 22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person and was not stopped by the employer (43%) 23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more mistreatment (43%) 24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41%) 25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required tasks: signoffs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40%)