Linda
Lockwood, Ph.D.
Metropolitan
State College of Denver
All too
often the headlines in the newspaper or lead story of the television news
outlines another act of violence against people in the workplace. In an effort
to guard against the violence, companies are training workers to identify
potentially violent co-workers. Training programs and evaluation of these
programs are costing businesses millions of dollars each year. Workplace violence exists on a continuum from
subtle, covert verbal violence to the massive killings that we see all too
often on the news. Because of the availability heuristic, many people perceive
it as a problem that primarily exists in post offices and other public service
industries. Workplace violence has become widespread and non-selective in its
appearance, however. By some it is seen
as a long-term, enduring trend in our society that has most likely not reached
its peak.
Workplace
violence is obviously a serious problem that must be better understood in order
to prevent its occurrence. Its cost to our society is measured in terms of
dollars and human life. For instance, it’s the second greatest cause of death
in the workplace for men and the first greatest cause of death in the workplace
for women (Gonzalez, 1999). If the cost of human life is not enough, millions
of corporate dollars are being spent on fighting violence in the workplace by
implementing training programs to identify and prevent potential violence.
In an effort
to assist companies and police agencies to prevent workplace violence, a number
of studies have tried to figure out what elements may be contributing to its
occurrence. One suggested contributor to the increase in workplace violence is
current business practices that put the employee on the defensive. Such things
as downsizing and contingent employment practices serve as examples of
practices that may interfere with feelings of security and loyalty in employees
(Neuman & Baron, 1998). When employees feel that an injustice has been
done, they may become violent (Gonzalez, 1999).
Unfortunately,
business practices are not the only potential contributors to the increase in
workplace violence. Other potential factors include individual characteristics
that may make a worker more prone to violence.
For instance, researchers Martinko and Zellars (1998) used a social
learning framework to organize what is known about workplace violence. They
emphasize that an “individual’s cognitive appraisal” of a situation can create
more severe affective reactions and potentially aggressive behaviors in situations
that may not call for heightened responses. In other words, some people may create
a “mountain out of a mole hill” because of the way they unrealistically
interpret their situation.
Lastly,
job stress and personal distress are factors that are associated with the
increased likelihood of workplace violence (see Hurrell, 1996 for example).
Profiles of perpetrators indicate that high stress levels are commonly
experienced prior to an act of workplace violence. These stressors could be
directly related to the individual’s job or may be related to a personal
relationship. In fact, domestic violence is a big contributor to the incidence
of workplace violence. Stalking and physical violence against an estranged wife
or husband is not an uncommon form of violence occurring in the workplace.
Workplace
violence differs from most other kinds of aggression because most experts say
that predictive behaviors signal the upcoming violent act. Experts state that most violent acts are
preceded by threats like, “I don’t get mad, I get even.” In addition, as
mentioned above, when employees feel that an injustice has been done to them,
they may begin acting out in the workplace, testing the limits of tolerance of
their employers. If employers do not respond to these early acts, the person
may become more confident and an escalation of violence may be observed
(Gonzalez, 1999).
So, how
are companies planning to combat violence in the workplace? To begin with,
training sessions are being incorporated into the workplace to assist workers
in identifying warning signs of workplace violence. Unfortunately, however,
many companies are only training management and executives, and not training
the employees that are more likely to be exposed to the warning signs. Plans or
procedures for dealing with an unfolding crisis are also critical for companies
to develop. How to warn employees of trouble developing in another area of the
company or how to get employees out of the building and into safe areas is
critical. Unfortunately, the latest statistics show that only 28% of companies
have developed policies and procedures to deal with workplace violence.
Increased awareness through good training programs offered to all employees may
help to reduce the number of violent acts in the workplace. However,
researchers will also need to continue to study contributing factors in the
workplace, so that preventive measures can be implemented more successfully.
Gonzalez,
E. Confronting workplace violence psychologist traces everyday causes. Rocky
Mountain News, October, 1999.
Hurrell,
J. Worthington, K., & Driscoll, R. (1996). Job stress, gender, and workplace
violence: Analysis of assault experiences of state employees. In Violence on
the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions. VandenBos and Bulatao Eds.
American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.
Neuman,
J., & Baron, R. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets.
Journal
of Management, 24(3), 391-419.
Martinko,
M., & Zellars, K. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression:
A cognitive appraisal perspective. In Dysfunctional behavior in organizations:
Violent and deviant behavior. Jai Press, Stamford CT.
Source:
http://psychstudy.brookscole.com/instructor/common/hottopics/99-11/workplace.html