Workplace Violence | Scope of Risk

Employers have a general duty to provide employees with work and a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm. Workplace violence prevention has generally been accepted as falling under the auspices of this general duty when hazards:

-  Represent a significant risk to employees in a unique or unpredictable concurrence of circumstances.

-  Are known to the employer and are considered hazards in the employer's business or industry.

-  Are ones that the employer can reasonably be expected to prevent.

Workplace violence is unique as a business hazard, because unlike other hazards the company might face it does not involve a work process or specific operating environment, but instead is an act committed by a person—whether an employee, an ex‐employee, a customer, a family member, or a client of the company. Workplace violence can have a significant impact on both personnel safety and operational productivity, as well as resulting in serious legal and liability issues for the company. Workplace violence can quickly reduce group morale; increase workforce absenteeism, stress, and retention and recruiting issues; and bring negative publicity and reputational challenges. Risks can range from verbal abuse or inferred threats to simple assaults, aggravated assaults, robberies, thefts, hostage taking, hijackings, rapes, sexual assaults, shootings, and fatalities.

Risk mitigation can be provided through effective screening, vetting, and hiring processes, a no‐weapons policy within the workplace, adequate security policies and staffing, as well as advisory training programs for managers and staff. Managers should be trained to spot the warning indicators of possible workplace violence risks, typically associated with some form of stress, and the IMP should provide guidance on immediate actions if indicators or actual events occur. The IMP should be linked to both conflict resolution measures as well as IRT and external agency response measures. The following policies and management measures will help reduce workplace violence probabilities and impacts:

-  Effective recruitment policies and procedures, including background checks.

-  A no‐weapons policy within the workplace.

-  Training for staff and management.

-  Effective security policies and staffing.

-  An interface and response plan with local police agencies.

-  Conflict resolution training for key managers.

-  Termination policies and plans—especially for high‐risk or susceptible personnel.

-  Risk audits to assess stress levels and workplace violence probability levels and response measures.

An employee exhibiting the following symptoms is not necessarily an individual who is prone to violence; however, violence is always a possibility when these warning signs are evident. These indicators are typical of an employee in difficulty; they strongly suggest that some kind of immediate intervention is needed:

-  Excessive Tardiness or Absences.: Beyond simply missing work, an employee may also reduce the workday by leaving early or departing the work site without authorization, or present numerous excuses for otherwise shortening the workday.

-  Increased Need for Supervision.: Employees typically require less supervision as they become more proficient at their work. An employee who exhibits an increased need for supervision, or whom the supervisor must spend an inordinate amount of time managing, may be an individual who is signaling a need for help.

-  Reduced Productivity.: If a previously efficient and productive employee experiences a sudden or sustained drop in performance, there is reason for concern. This is a classic warning sign of dissatisfaction.

-  Inconsistency.: As in the case of reduced productivity, an employee exhibiting inconsistent work habits may be in need of intervention. Employees are typically quite consistent in their work habits, and if this changes, the manager has reason to suspect the individual is in need of assistance.

-  Strained Workplace Relationships.: Many of the classic behavioral warning signs may be identified under this category. If a worker begins to display disruptive behavior in the workplace, it is imperative that the manager intervene as quickly as possible to diffuse a potentially violent situation.

-  Inability to Concentrate.: This may indicate a worker who is distracted and in trouble. Employee counseling is indicated.

-  Violation of Safety Procedures.: This behavior may be due to carelessness, insufficient training, or stress. If an employee who has traditionally adhered to safety procedures is suddenly involved in accidents or safety violations, stress may be indicated.

-  Changes in Health or Hygiene.: An employee who suddenly disregards personal health or grooming may be signaling for help.

-  Unusual Behavior.: As mentioned previously, a sustained change in behavior is often an indication of an employee in difficulty. Common sense is the best judge of this issue. Workers are typically familiar with the personalities of their peers and are often quick to notice significant changes.

-  Fascination with Weapons.: This is a classic behavioral warning sign that should be easily recognized by coworkers and managers.

-  Substance Abuse.: It is important that every organization have some methodology in place to identify and assist an employee who has become the victim of drug or alcohol abuse.

-  Stress.: Stress is a serious and widespread problem in the workplace. As with substance abuse, an organization should have procedures in place to identify workers who are victims of stress and provide an effective intervention program.

-  Excuses and Blaming.: This is a classic behavioral warning sign that is often easy to identify but just as often ignored by managers. A worker who engages in this behavior is often signaling for assistance, and requires counseling and, possibly, professional intervention.

-  Depression.: Depression is a common ailment, and an individual suffering from depression is not necessarily prone to violence. If, however, the depression is evident for a sustained period of time, professional intervention is recommended, because a violent outcome is always a possibility.

Many of these indicators for managers are alternative ways of interpreting the key behavioral warning signs associated with potential violence. They are almost always warning signs of an employee who requires help. An astute manager will often be quite aware of these indicators through experience and instinct. These tools, experience and instinct, are valuable components of good management, and any employee who exhibits one or more of these indicators must be assumed to be in need of assistance or intervention. The IMP is designed to enable managers to understand what measures should be taken if warning indicators are present, or in more serious cases, if personnel are responding in an aggressive or violent manner to other employees.

Threats, Coercion, and Extortion | Scope of Risk

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary manner (either through action or inaction), by the use of threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure or force. Extortion occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution through coercion or intimidation, or threatens a person, entity, or institution with physical or reputational harm unless they pay money, or property (or is profiting in some other manner). Threats, coercion, or extortion of company staff or subcontractors can be detrimental to the safety and welfare of individuals, as well as to the productivity of the business activity as a whole. Critical personnel or entire workforces may not attend work if perceived to be at risk, and employees may feel forced to undermine the company by actively participating in illegal or unethical activities if they or their families are threatened. Isolated threat or coercion events, even when perpetrated by individuals or based on a hoax, can have widespread and dramatic effects on the morale of entire workforces and the success of both micro‐ and macro‐level business activities, even when driven by individual and group perceptions rather than by a clinical assessment of risk. The company should consider the following when facing such threats:

-  Consider the welfare of the employee and overall workforce morale.

-  Consider the implications to corporate reputation and business continuity.

-  Obtain all available details about the incident.

-  If it appears a credible extortion, threat, or coercive event, mobilize the CRT.

-  Identity of perpetrators, their motive, credibility, capability, and likely intentions.

-  Conduct a detailed analysis of the threat: to kill, injure, or kidnap personnel or to sabotage, damage, or steal equipment or intellectual property.

-  Establish the implications if the threat were to be carried out.

-  Establish whether dialogue can be established without increasing the threat.

-  Determine what external government and specialist resources might be required.

-  Gather information on any other existing or previous similar threats and their outcomes.

-  Consider the legal and long‐term business implications of conceding to demands.

-  Review the capability of local law enforcement agencies to act to eliminate the threat; confirm they are not involved.

It is important for companies to make a determination of the nature, extent, and likelihood of a threat or coercive risk, taking into account the welfare and safety of employees, corporate reputation, and the business continuity requirements. Typically, such risk elements are identified by or reported to local managers, and in coordination with the company's security manager, a pragmatic threat assessment should be undertaken, balancing the likelihood of the threat being implemented against the impacts the threat will have on the individual or group, as well as the company operations. While the safety of employees is paramount, companies must also consider the legal liabilities in the event of a threat being carried out. The company must also evaluate whether coerced individuals are assisting (albeit unwillingly) criminal groups to protect family members, are seeking financial compensation for false claims, or are indeed at any real risk.

Threats may be made to specific individuals or as a blanket statement to communities or particular groups. Threats and coercion may also be used as a business vehicle by unscrupulous companies seeking to deter competition. In some countries, criminal threats are often masked under the auspices of insurgency and terrorism. Companies should seek to determine the motive behind threats and coercion. Understanding the nature, likelihood, and scope of any postulated threat can be developed, in part, by establishing the gender, race, age, education level, voice characteristics, and mental or emotional state of the person making the threat, whether in person or by telephone. Any mention of a demand for money or other concessions will also assist in determining the nature and extent of the risk, confirming the motive, credibility, capability, and likely intention of the perpetrator(s).

The company may wish to review security arrangements of employees, consider withdrawal or relocation of those most at risk, and determine mitigation measures to enable business to continue. Options may include ignoring any demands, attempting to deflect the perpetrator(s) by entering a dialogue in order to cause a delay without actually dismissing the demand, and negotiating for local government or community support. Companies may also consider threatening to withdraw from operations in the area, thereby laying off the local workforce; this move might generate external resolutions, as a wider community is detrimentally affected. Law enforcement agency assistance may be sought, with the intention to plan an operation to arrest the perpetrator(s) during negotiations or a pretense of payment. Alternatively, modifications to operating procedures can be implemented to avoid or mitigate the risks. The IMP will assist local managers in gathering clear and detailed information as to the nature of the risk, enabling companies to quickly distinguish real from perceived risks posed by these threats, educate affected employees, as well as take remedial actions to protect staff and the business activity at risk.

Facility Intrusion | Scope of Risk

A facility breach may be due to unintentional intrusion by ignorant trespassers—for example, as a result of the facility being on traditional trade or migration routes by nomads—or it may be done by opportunistic and unrefined criminal elements seeking to pilfer materials; by organized crime seeking to steal high‐value assets; or by insurgents, terrorists, or special‐interest group activists seeking to kidnap employees, damage critical infrastructures, or make a public statement to support their cause. Intrusion may be slowed by physical security structures and manpower provided to protect a facility, and alerts may come from human or technological measures. Typically the security plan for a facility or critical infrastructure will outline the measures used to deter, detect, delay, prevent, and respond to an intrusion. Where mature security plans and policies are not in place or a non‐security‐trained manager is in charge of the first stages of a response, the IMP will play a crucial role in providing guidance to assist in managing the situation until law enforcement or other response agencies can deploy and resolve the situation.

In the event of a physical security breach of a facility, it is important that both immediate and interim‐term risks are identified, understood, and mitigated. The nature of the intrusion will largely determine the actions taken (i.e., if intruders are armed or unarmed; if they intend to harm individuals, steal property, or damage infrastructures). The following common threats are posed by facility intrusion:

-  Physical or psychological threats to personnel, including assault, intimidation, and kidnapping.

-  Threats to critical infrastructures: explosive hazards, vandalism, and contamination.

-  Theft or damage to assets and other materials.

-  Espionage and data theft.

-  Corporate reputation and image risks.

-  Disruption to operational and business productivity.

-  Sit‐ins or unlawful occupancy of areas or work spaces.

-  Liability and legal risks.

In addition, the nature of security policies and resources in place to protect a facility will also guide the response measures (e.g., mature or inadequate policies and plans, and a robust and armed security force or an insubstantial and unarmed response force). Long‐term risks will be the responsibility of the crisis response group, who should address shortfalls and gaps within any security plan and associated policies and resource levels. Local site or incident managers should determine the following facts as the basis of their response decision paths:

-  Where has the breach occurred?

-  When did it occur?

-  Are intruders armed and violent?

-  How many intruders are there? Is their location known? What do they look like?

-  What is their intent, and what other threats might be posed by the intruders?

-  Can organic security resources counter those of the intruders?

-  What level of support is available from government or other agencies?

-  What personnel are at risk, and can they be secured?

-  What resources of infrastructures are at risk, and can they be secured?

The IMP should complement a mature and well‐constructed security plan where possible. The IMP should be tied to standard operating practices and preprepared security response protocols to ensure that security personnel, or other employees, carry out immediate actions upon notification of a security breach. Where security plans and resources are not in place, the IMP should be focused on ensuring the safety of personnel and the protection of vulnerable or high‐value resources or assets, while guiding law enforcement or other resources to the point of threat.