Nancy and Julia were two of their company's best human resources managers.
They had both been with their company for over 12 years, yet they had never
encountered anyone like Harry M. He had been with their company for less than
a year. During this time, he had alienated and upset just about anyone who had
worked with him. He was rude, verbally abusive, and frequently uncooperative
with both coworkers and customers alike. Harry had been counseled about his
behavior on several occasions. He been warned that if he did not change his
behavior he could be terminated. The final straw came when Harry ignored a supervisor's
request and threatened the supervisor with bodily harm.
The Fatal Break
Nancy and Julia were tasked with terminating Harry's employment. They had
expressed some concern for their safety because of Harry's hostile and belligerent
nature. Their company shared their concern, and notified the local police department
with whom they had an excellent relationship. Two officers were assigned to
be present at the facility on the day of the termination. They parked their
patrol car in front of the building, near the front entrance. The officers informed
Nancy and Julia they could be available on a moment's notice should their assistance
be required.
Nancy and Julia conducted the termination meeting with Harry in the company's
first floor conference room. The meeting started out relatively quietly, but
began to increase in intensity when Harry was told that he was being terminated.
He maintained that according to company policy, he believed he should be placed
on probation. Harry argued his point quite forcefully, and with a great deal
of emotion. When he saw that he seemed to be losing the argument, he abruptly
stopped and asked to take a break, so that he could go to the bathroom and regain
his composure.
Nancy and Julia agreed to a 10-minute break. It seemed like a reasonable
request, and they were glad to have a few minutes away from Harry. During the
break, Harry left the conference room and headed for the bathroom. When he was
finished in the bathroom, he went to his office for a few minutes. He then returned
to the conference room, and gave Nancy and Julia one more chance to change their
mind about the termination. When they refused, he took out the nine millimeter
pistol that he had gotten from his office, and shot and killed Nancy and Julia.
A Disastrous Ending
Bill H. had always been something of a loner at work. His job provided him
with numerous opportunities to interact with coworkers and customers, yet he
rarely said more than one or two words to them beyond what was necessary to
do his job. Bill lived alone, had no friends that anyone knew about, and seemed
to stay late at work almost every night of the week. He would even be seen on
weekends working in his office. When asked about this, he said that he loved
his job, and that it was the most important thing in his life.
About a year after he was hired, Bill began to take sick leave days on a
regular basis. One day he came into work with a note from his doctor placing
him on short-term disability. Bill returned to work several weeks later, and
shared with his supervisor that he had gone out on disability because he needed
to be hospitalized for a severe depression. He told his supervisor that he was
feeling much better and was ready to resume working. Bill's first few weeks
back at work were relatively uneventful. He continued to put long hours in at
work, including weekends. He also mentioned to his supervisor how grateful he
was to the company for their support, and that his job was the one and only
thing that mattered to him in his life.
A few weeks later things took a turn for the worse. There were rumors going
around the office that the company was going to downsize. Bill became increasingly
depressed and agitated over this. At one point he told his supervisor that he
didn't know what he would do if he lost his job. What Bill feared would happen,
did happen. He was called into his supervisor's office and told that his job
was being eliminated. Bill pleaded with his supervisor not to end his employment.
He talked about the long hours he had given to the company each week, and how
his work performance was considerably better than most of the people that were
remaining.
Bill's pleas were in vain. He was given what the company thought was a generous
severance package. On his last day of work, he went up to the supervisor, and
in an uncharacteristic display of emotion, told the supervisor how angry he
was at him and the company for what they had done to him. He said he felt his
life was over, but wanted to live long enough to see everyone pay for what they
had done to him. He then calmed down and left. Bill's supervisor thought about
telling human resources about Bill's comments, but then decided not to, since
he had been involved in a number of terminations when people became upset and
said things they didn't mean.
Three days later Bill returned to his former workplace with a gun. He killed
his former supervisor and two other coworkers before turning the gun on himself
and committing suicide.
Dangerous Similarities
The incidents described above have a number of similarities: both employees
were clearly dissatisfied and unhappy, both made their feelings known to supervisory
personnel, both felt they were being treated unfairly, and both resorted to
violence that ended in tragedies. These incidents were also similar in two other
important ways: (1) there were mistakes made by supervisory personnel, and (2)
they could have been prevented.
The Tools of Prevention
In the early 1990s, television and newspaper media were filled with stories
about workplace homicides. Hardly a week would go by without a report of some
employee or exemployee going to his or her worksite and killing one or more
coworkers. Some of the most infamous of these incidents took place at U.S. Postal
Service facilities in places such as Dearborn, Michigan; Edmonds, Oklahoma;
Escondido, California; Dana Point, California; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
The consciousness of the country was raised and attempts were made to prevent
future incidents like these from happening. At the time, over 1,000 homicides
were occurring each year at the workplace. Many companies and organizations
responded to this by developing workplace violence prevention programs. Today
there are approximately 40 percent fewer workplace homicides than there were
in the early 1990s. Workplace violence prevention programs have played an important
role in reducing the number of homicides.
One of the most important components of a comprehensive workplace violence
prevention program is a procedure for terminating a potentially violent employee,
so that tragedies such as those described above can be avoided. Whereas in the
past many potentially violent individuals were terminated somewhat abruptly
and without much thought or long-term planning, today's potentially violent
employee's termination is often the end result of a carefully thought out process
involving several members of the employer's workplace violence prevention team.
This team is has representatives from human resources, legal, security, and
executive management. An outside consultant specializing in workplace violence
prevention and threat assessment and incident management is usually a key member
of the team.
The team generally has a set of well-developed and clearly articulated processes
and procedures that are implemented when there is the potential for violence
during a termination. Once the possibility of a dangerous termination occurs,
the team takes steps to insure the safety of all involved, and in particular,
tries to avoid placing anyone involved in harm's way. This process may include
moving potential targets off-site and/or to safe and secure areas, placing armed
security on-site, and calling upon other resources to help protect all involved.
Each situation has elements unique to it, so each situation requires a unique
investigation and solution that hopefully end s peacefully.
Harry M.—The Team's Approach
Clearly there was some awareness of potential for violence or else the police
would not have been asked to be present during his termination. What was apparently
missing was a clearly articulated set of procedures that were part of a workplace
violence prevention plan developed by Harry's employer. The "best practice"
plans include procedures for terminating a potentially violent employee. The
procedures include determining where and when the meeting will take place, who
will be present, how will they be dressed, where will they be seated, what will
be in the room, how long will the meeting last, and how and when will Harry
enter end leave the building.
Prior to the meeting the team should go through an exercise involving every
"what if" they can imagine. These would include: "What if Harry gets angry during
the meeting and makes a threat?"; "What if Harry comes to the meeting with a
briefcase that could contain a weapon?"; "What if Harry has a weapon in his
car and decides to use it after the meeting?"; "What if Harry has a weapon hidden
in his office?" These are just some of the questions to be asked. The answers
to these questions should then help formulate a plan for terminating Harry in
such a way as to minimize or eliminate the potential for violence.
This approach works the most effectively when it is used by a team, particularly
a team that includes a workplace violence prevention specialist that has extensive
experience in threat assessment and incident management, and has participated
in numerous such terminations. This specialist would have advised the team that
it would be safer to have the armed officers close by, perhaps in an adjacent
room. The specialist would also have advised that Harry not be permitted to
return to his office. Two of the "Rules To Live By" when terminating a potentially
violent employee are: (1) Do not take any breaks during the meeting, and (2)
Do not let the employee return to his work area. Having the officers nearby
and following these two rules most likely would have resulted in a non-tragic
ending.
Bill M.—The Team Approach
In this instance a team approach would most likely have taken Bill's comments
about the impotence of the job to him very seriously, and considered the possibility
that Bill was losing the only thing that mattered to him. This loss, along with
his reports of depression should have led the team to consider the "What Ifs?"
in Bill's situation, particularly the possibility that he might attempt to harm
himself. After Bill became angry and made the threatening statements, another
"What If?" should have included the possibility that Bill could continue to
escalate his anger after he left the work site and subsequently return and attempt
to carry out his threats. Consideration could then be given to take security
measures to prevent this from happening.
A Hindsight Approach?
It is possible to read the above and argue that the solutions proposed are
based on hindsight, and that it is not difficult to propose alternate responses
to a situation once the situation occurs. Such a position may be true in some
instances, but not in the present instance. The work of the many people who
have developed workplace violence prevention programs, and the experiences of
the thousands of people who have managed incidents have resulted in a body of
knowledge that provides the tools and solutions to manage potentially violent
incidents with foresight and in a way that clearly diminishes the potential
for a tragic incident. It remains only for those facing such incidents to call
upon the resources that are available to them, and to seek the assistance of
others who have successfully dealt with these situations.