The recent, tragic death of a Yale graduate student working in her laboratory serves as a stark reminder that violence can strike at any time, anywhere.  Workplace violence is hardly a new concern, but it is a concern that tends to be pushed to the background out of fear, resource limitations or the sense that it “wouldn’t happen here.”  Like any other problem of consequence, paying attention to it before it strikes is far more effective and far less painful than attempting to deal with the aftermath of it’s consequences.

Every organization should be attending to the core components of a workplace violence strategy:

Prevention

1. Reference checks.  Be sure to ask the question “Is this employee eligible for rehire.”  Listen to the tone of the individual responding to your call and probe.  While some employers will provide no more than verification of  a candidate’s employment, good inquiry can often get you more information. Background checks are also appropriate.

2. Screening and Selection.  While the use of psychological testing in pre employment screening is on the rise, such screening is reliably used to measure such things as personality, motivation and aptitude. There is no “test” or “profile” to administer, but there are things that employers can do in the assessment and interview process to determine the candidate’s response to stress and conflict by asking questions about prior conflicts in their life and how they were resolved, or a time they got angry in the workplace and how it affected them.

3. A policy that defines workplace violence, provides information about warning signs, requires employees to report suspicions or knowledge and forbids any threats, intimidation or violence is essential. The US Department of Labor, OSHA offers sample policies and extensive materials to help employers as does the US Chamber of Commerce .  It is critical that all forms of workplace violence be clearly defined, including verbal threats, intimidation, brandishing of objects (that need not be traditional “weapons” and engaging others to harass or intimidate.

4. Mandatory training for employees to institute the policy and practices.  This training should review myths and facts about workplace violence (for instance, the Hollywood version of the perfectly healthy person “suddenly snapping” is largely fiction, and most individuals acting violently at work have shown warning signs) how to recognize signs of stress or destabilization in others, how to report and what to do if an incident occurs. The training should include hypotheticals focusing on incidents involving employees, customers and vendors.

5. Mandatory training for supervisors focusing on their duty to monitor employees, and to understand possible triggers (layoffs, management changes, declining performance, destabilized personal life) that may warrant seeking guidance or assistance, a discussion of preventative management techniques, such as clear and evenhanded communication, listening sessions and respectful workplace behavior.  Supervisors should also be trained in methods for delivering critical messages and should be required to consult with the Critical Response Team prior to terminating an employee to ensure best practices are applied.

6. A Critical Response Team involving organizational security, Human Resources, Facilities, Legal, Health Services, Public Information and other key representatives that should be well prepared for a threat or incident, including conducting regular threat assessments and drilling for critical incidents.  This group should also be responsible for implementing an easily accessible and highly protective reporting mechanism that will take complaints from third parties as well as those directly involved in risk situations.  Amongst their tasks should include instituting a “code” for notification of hostage situations, a lockdown procedure, establishing relationships with the appropriate police agencies and making recommendations for additional training or support for supervisors and employees.

7. Attention to the physical environment is important; if there is a risk of violence from an agitated customer or client, do public-contact workers have a mode of egress, or would they be trapped in a room?  Are customer areas visible from other areas? Are meeting areas with plexiglass windows available to those who must meet privately with members of the public?

8. Work Climate and Culture assessment; there is firm evidence that workers who are satisfied and engaged are highly unlikely to engage in counterproductive conflict, no less violence and threats.  Healthy workplaces are a primary source of violence prevention.  In particular,taking steps to encourage candor, effective conflict management and instituting effective  Alternative Dispute Resolution systems and strategies may be the best investment in preventing workplace violence.

9. All complaints must be taken seriously and acted upon.  There are no such things as “false complaints,” as the goal of a workplace violence strategy is to keep people safe.  Employers must emphasize that any employee who does not feel safe should never worry about getting someone in trouble or being laughed at for his or her worries.

10. The two greatest stressors in the workplace are declining competence and instability.  Workers struggling with new technology, those waiting to hear if they are in the next wave of layoffs,  employees changing jobs and being on a steep learning curve can and should be encouraged to use the employers EAP, wellness programs and outside resources to assist them.

It is essential that employers recognize the tremendous cost of NOT being proactive regarding workplace violence.  It can happen here.

This story on NPR about spotting lies reinforces the basic premise of Sepler & Associate’s training on interviewing and assessing credibility; begin each interview with low-value “baselining” questions in order to ascertain the manner and style of the person’s truthful narrative.  Elicit details.  Be interested and listen closely.  Use the observations you have made to determine changes in “baseline” behavior later on.  Mix things up.  Change the time frame of your questions or probe retrospectively (what happened immediately before that?).  Listening for facts will also keep an interviewer from the common error of trying to support their own premature, and perhaps erroneous conclusions.

Here are the slides from the interviewing session sepler anatomy

I have restructured the link and will test it to be sure that the document is, in fact, attached.

1.  What suggestions do you have for employees that use the “buzzwords,” such as “hostile environment,” or “harassment, when (the complaint is ) really about a manager that is dealing with performance issues.  When I have told the employee that what I heard wasn’t a hostile work environment or harassment, they ask for the definition and then change their story.

It is probably not prudent or helpful to debate with a complainant about what the legal definition of an employee’s issue might be.  Employees know, rightfully so that by invoking certain words, they will get your attention, and so they say “harassment,” or “hostile environment.”  Regardless of whether they are technically correct, their concerns should be taken seriously.  Rather than concluding that their issues are based in proper performance management, it would be appropriate to ask about the behaviors they are experiencing, why they feel harassed, or why they feel their environment is hostile.  While what they describe might not fall within your harassment policy, it might call for some coaching or consulting with the managers involved to discuss ways to improve the way things are happening.    Taking complaints seriously, listening carefully to what is going on, taking a neutral and balanced look at the situation and responding fairly will serve you well, and certainly far better than debating the legal, technical aspect of the complaint.

2. What can/should we tell claimant and alleged perpetrator at the end of the investigation?

You’ve unintentionally given me the opportunity to address an issue I often fail to mention — and that is the labelling of parties in an investigation.  I don’t believe “perpetrator,” alleged or not is a term that is likely to make an employee feel he or she is likely to have a fair shot. From a popular culture standpoint, we tend to reserve that term for crimes, and mostly crimes of violence.  While harassment and discrimination may be damaging, let’s not find ourselves equating them with crimes of violence, but instead recognize them as workplace issues that must be addressed, remembering that only a small percentage of those who are found to violate harassment policies are terminated for doing so.  Thus, tomorrow, the “alleged perpetrator” may be one of the employees whose engagement you are seeking.

With apologies for the mini-rant, the answer to your questions is, “as little as possible if it involves anyone else.”  In other words, ” a complaint was made, an investigation was done, if the findings of the investigation called for action, such action was taken AND the bottom line is that if conduct was occuring that violated our policy, it is our expectation that they will not recur.

When do you ask if the complaining employee objected to the conduct? This is a question that should be asked in Stage 3 — reconstruction, and the question is best framed “What, if anything, did you do in response?”  Remember, an employee need not have directly protested the conduct for that conduct to still have been unwelcome.

(In response to my statement that managers, not HR people should be making decisions about the consequences or actions the business will take) How do you recommend we handle doing the investigation, having the manager make decisions on the next step AND manage consistency within the organization?

You give the manager a “decision package,” which includes how similar claims have been handled in the past, the range of options available and the costs and benefits (including deviating from past practice) of each option.

As promised, here are the slides from the session on Planning the Investigation. Planning the Investigation 2009

1. If an employee identifies multiple witnesses that were “in the room,” or observed an event, how many should be interviewed?

I would suggest that the answer to the question would depend on the relationship of the witnesses to the employee.  If two are the employee’s close friend and one is not, I would begin with the person most likely to be neutral.  I also think that if you can identify people who were “in the room” that were NOT named by the employee, that those witnesses would offer a “cleaner” version.  With that said, I would say to the employee, “If I can only interview two or three of these  witnesses, who would be most important for me to speak with and why?” and make sure that at least one person s/he identifies is interviewed.

2. Are there times that an employer should disregard a witness because their credibility is questionable, i.e. a friend of a complainant might have a motive to lie?

One of the most powerful witnesses can be one who speaks against their own interest.  I remember several years ago thinking that it would be a waste of time to interview a witness because of her close association with the respondent.  She said to me, “She is my best friend, and I hate to say this, but she did it.”  Here, a witness that had every reason to defend her friend did the opposite. If  I had skipped that interview, things would still be inconclusive.  I would not disregard a witness simply based on a relationship, however I would use my knowledge about that relationship to “push back,” perhaps asking, “do you believe your friendship with ….is affecting your perspective on this issue?”

As promised, here is a PDF version of my slides from the Intake session on Friday morning.  twenty four hours twenty four hours 2009

1. How do we validate feelings without validating the substance of the complaint?
Great question. You will recall that I discussed the importance of naming the feelings people have, but to refrain from making any statements that assume the facts being asserted to be true. Therefore, we can say things like, “I can see it is hard for you to discuss this,” or ” You seem very angry,” or “I am sorry this is so difficult for you,” without giving away anything. We are not attributing the feelings, Just naming them.

2.We have a chronic complainer. How do we decide which “gift” to take seriously?
Recalling that receiving a complaint can be compared with getting a “gift,” this questioner points out that it is difficult to be gracious when you are getting complaints frequently and sometimes without merit. In the intake process, we are listening to someone’s concerns and trying to figure out what kind of problem they are describing. While someone is complaining is NOT the time to educate them about what is “worth” complaining about and what is not. It is possible, however, that chronic complainers will respond to a “level setting” discussion when they are in a relatively unstressed state. Sit down with the person and express concerns about their frequent unhappiness and discuss the kinds of things that should be brought forward for HR or managerial handling and those things that they might want to address themselves. Brainstorm strategies with them about self-help and assertiveness, and point out to them that constant complaining about things that are trivial will dilute their effectiveness in getting help when it really matters.
3. I am interested to hear more about giving the employee the option to address the situation themselves in the case of a “concern” level issue. Is thee risk that the employee will not be honest with you when you follow up? Have you run into this and does it raise large concerns?
Thanks for this question. It gives me an opportunity to be clearer about the parameters for self help.
If you have a complainant who is describing a single incident of moderate or low offensiveness, and who is reluctant to get the person involved in trouble or who is concerned about a damaged relationship with the “bad actor,” they can be coached to take steps on their own such as writing a note describing the conduct and requesting that it stop, having a discussion directly with the person (perhaps after role playing the discussion with you) or taking another direct-action step. As I said, it is important that you then follow up, first to ensure the planned action was taken, and then several subsequent time to ensure that the behavior has not recurred. I find that by asking detailed questions in follow up it is fairly clear whether or not the person actually went through with the discussion or action. I have also found that when I suspect they are being untruthful that if I ask if they mind my checking in with the other person, they quickly demonstrate whether or not they actually have followed through. If the person did misrepresent their actions, I am not certain that there is immense risk involved, as the behavior involved is assumed to be isolated and the action taken by you as the organization’s representative was reasonable. If it does not recur, it’s not the best result, but not the worst result either.

4.  What about hearsay complaints,i.e Jane told her daughter, who’s my girlfriend who told me that one of her coworkers keeps doing “x” but Jane doesn’t want to come forward..

There are two ways to go with these kinds of things, but it depends on what “X” is, in other words, what is alleged to be happening.  If “X” is swearing, writing graffiti,  telling dirty jokes, using racial slurs, or some other independently verifiable behavior, it seems that looking into whether or not it is happening is not dependent on a particular complainant.  Poll a few employees about work climate, ask if there are problem behaviors and proceed appropriately.  If “X” is doing something TO JANE, then you will need to bring Jane in and tell her that you have received information that she may have concerns and conduct a preliminary intake interview with her.  If she denies expressing concerns, you might ask why someone would beleive she had raised concerns or whether others have a motive to misrepresent her concerns.

Thanks for everyone who attended the “Investigations School” at the Institute, and to our great actor, Camilla Hempleman for being so effective an interview subject. Look for my PP slides and answers to your questions here soon.

“His face was inches from mine,” said the complainant.  “I felt as though he was going to hit me.  He didn’t yell, but spoke so slowly that it was as though I was a child.  I could feel myself shaking.  He told me I was worthless, and then threw the report on my desk and stomped out.”

This (composite) statement was made by a middle aged man in a mid management position, describing one of many incidents involving his male manager.  The history included name calling, public belittling, threats of job loss and the periodic throwing of objects or (in one case) destroying work product.  Desperate, he had gone to see his Human Resources manager who told him, not for the first time, that there was little she could do.  There had been numerous complaints over the years, but this behavior was neither discriminatory nor violent, and therefore was viewed more as a “style issue” than an issue of policy.  This company, like most, did not have a policy prohibiting bullying or “general harassment”–that is  intimidating behavior that is not based on protected class status and does not rise to a level of threats of violence.

“The truth is,” said the Human Resources Manager when seeking my advice,”Frank (pseudonym) is one of our most effective guys, results wise.  He manages up brilliantly and no matter his methods, he gets the job done.  When we’ve tried to influence his leader to take control of the situation, he suggests that we recruit better people for Frank.  He tells us that Frank is a driver, and the problem is his subpar staff.”

What are workplaces to do with the “Franks” of the workplace?  Talented and capable, perfectionistic and goal driven, they are ideal leaders on paper.  Their metrics tend to shine, but not reflect the damage inflicted on others and the unused potential wasted in the process.  In the best of worlds, bullys would be spotted early in their careers and held accountable for their people practices.  Technical expertise would have to somehow be paired with a modicum of emotional intelligence and an understanding of human development.  That doesn’t happen in most organizations, and most particularly in the professions such as law and medicine, where one rises on the strength of their accomplishments, not their relationships.

In May, I will be presenting a short session on  bullies at  Minnesota CLE’s   Strategic Discovery: Preventing Discovery Abuses and Handling Discovery Disputes. It will be focused on attorneys in litigation, but in preparation, I’ve been looking through the files of the many workplace bullies referred to me for coaching over the years.  These folks have agreed to see me because they either recognize they have an issue or they have been told that their career progress or even retention was conditional upon being coached.  From them, I have learned several things:

• Workplace bullies are intrinsically rewarded for bullying behavior starting early in their career.  Bullying men are viewed as masterful and strong willed early on, and bullying women are looked at as defying unfortunate stereotypes about womens lack of aggressiveness.  This begins a cycle of escalating agression and growing disregard for others.
• Workplace bullies are often belaguered with complex familial histories including disapproving or distant parents,  abuse, abandonment or isolation. Part of their perfectionism is compensatory.
• Workplace bullies have enormous blind spots about alternative ways to effectively direct people.  They are “one trick ponies,” although their repertory of bullying behavior may be quite extensive.  In order to help them, one has to start at a very basic level to teach and practice listening skills, appreciative inquiry, and creative problem solving.  Since they are usually extremely intelligent, they may feel this is beneath them or lack patience for this kind of process.
• Workplace bullies surprisingly view themselves as victims as often as they view themselves as contributors.  A good place to read about one view of this, the “victim, villian, hero” model is in The Alpha Male Syndrome by Kate Ludeman and Eddie Erlandson.
• Workplace bullies often have somewhat narcissistic personalities.  In coaching them, it is important to deal with several serious impediments to change, including a well-fortified sense of entitlement (for years, their behavior will have been excused because they are “so good at what they do.”), and a similarly well-developed sense that they are “special,” often demonstrated by awards, industry recognition, credentials, and successful career endeavors.  One tool to help break through this involves “field work” volunteering in the community and meeting with people whose lives are dramatically different from his or hers.  Another tool involves opportunities to see the power of empathy by watching and discussing movies of  strong but emotionally intelligent leaders  — Remember the Titans, A Few Good Men, Twelve Angry Men–and don’t overlook The Devil Wears Prada — and deconstructing key scenes.
• Workplace Bullies need 360 feedback that is deep, frank and candid.  Without solid data that they are not as successful as they think they are, the bullying behavior will continue to be functional.

Since these comments focusing on dealing with the bully, and don’t focus on prevention, employers should recognize the damage that bullies cause.  Research has long linked workplace bullying to PTSD, to absenteeism, retention and productivity problems and to a nearly viral spread of bullying behavior in organizations where top leaders are permitted to bully.  Simply put, organizations need to look past the nominal productivity of the bully to see the long term liability of their behavior.  One simple way to begin to change a culture is to change harassment policies, suggesting that harassment is prohibited “for no reason or any reason.”  While this statement may increase the need for interventions by human resources, it also provides ample opportunity to “bulk up” workplace training, particularly management training, and to begin creating a culture where bullying behavior is addressed.  Add to that the “one two punch” of a policy requiring affirmative response by any manager or supervisor to a complaint or a concern of workplace bullying, and the organization will have taken immense steps towards signalling to all that while excellence is expected, it is not at the cost of the mental or emotional health of employees.