NOTE: I apologize for the delayed posting. Our blogging platform was having technical difficulties for much of the day on Friday, so I decided to wait until Monday to post this to make sure you saw it!
In my last post, in response to the bombings at the Boston Marathon, I talked about some ways that employers can prevent violence in the workplace and even avoid hiring the type of employee who might become violent. (Realizing, of course, that there are no guarantees and many laws limit what an employer can do from a predictive standpoint.)
This week, I'd like to talk about crisis management: what can an employer do to help defuse a dangerous situation, or pacify a fragile employee?
But first, some disclaimers
Based on comments I received last week, it appears that I need to make some disclaimers:
1. I realize that the Boston Marathon bombings and the other mass killings we've been experiencing are not the typical "workplace violence" scenario. However, many people have been killed, injured, or put at risk in their workplaces as a result of these incidents.
2. I realize that a ban on weapons in the workplace would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the horror of the Marathon bombings, Sandy Hook, or the shootings at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado.
3. The majority of workplace violence scenarios do not involve terrorists or mass murders. They involve small-time personal disputes between one or two employees over very mundane grievances. You know -- adultery, mean supervisors, abusive spouses, grudges, drugs. The kind of stuff you encounter in country songs. (Speaking of which, RIP to the great George Jones, pictured above.) Employers can exercise some control over this type of scenario.
Calming troubled waters
The employee who is on the edge because of a "country music" situation can often be talked out of it. Here are some tips that can help:
- Be predictable.
- Listen. Be empathetic. Acknowledge the employee's feelings.
- Refer to your own behavior, rather than coming across as accusing the fragile employee.
- Give your employee the benefit of the doubt that he or she wants to change, but don't expect change to occur overnight.
- Provide encoragement and positive feedback for even small changes in the right direction.
- Project a sense of calm.
- Don't make promises if you may not be able to keep them.
- Accept criticism.
- Break big problems into smaller units.
- Ask the employee for suggestions.
- Be aware of cultural differences.
- Pay attention to language and tone.
It's also important to avoid doing anything that the employee will find humiliating. If you believe that you need to have law enforcement officers present, that's fine, but have them "lay low" in another room nearby. If the employee has to be escorted out, make sure it's done as quietly and unobtrusively as possible.
Also, don't forget about our old friend, the Family and Medical Leave Act. Allowing an "at-risk" employee to take a medical leave to escape a stressful situation and get help may be an ideal solution for everyone. If the employee can qualify for short-term disability benefits, all the better. (Completely off topic, but good to know: The Department of Labor plans to increase the number of FMLA on-site investigations. I guess anything more than "zero" would be an increase.)
And, of course, if the employee actually makes threats or behaves violently, you should terminate. But your first priority should be to get the employee off the premises safely.
Some may (and probably will) disagree with me, but I also think it's a good idea to take into account the validity of the employee's grievance. Suppose an employee has just found out that his wife is cheating on him with a co-worker. Doesn't he have a right to be outraged? Of course he does, and since he's "rationally" outraged, you may be able to calm him down. On the other hand, if the employee has -- just as an example -- a pathological obsession with a co-worker, there may be very little that you can do other than get him (or her) out of there and do what you can to make sure he (or she) doesn't come back.
Why I favor weapons bans in the workplace
One commenter from last week disagreed with my recommendation about having a no-weapons policy in the workplace. Here are four reasons why I think it's a good idea to ban weapons at work (and I'm not talking about Swiss Army knives or sporks -- just the "hard stuff"):
You got a license to carry those sporks?
1. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to private employers any more than the First Amendment protects the right of employees in the private sector to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive. These amendments apply to state action only. Moreover, most concealed-carry laws allow employers and buildings to prohibit weapons. So a ban on weapons in the workplace would not normally infringe upon anyone's constitutional or legal rights.
2. Although a weapons ban won't prevent a mass killing by a terrorist or a James Holmes, it can help to keep "country music" disputes among co-workers from becoming deadly. These crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, and it's a lot easier to commit a crime in the heat of the moment when you're packing heat.
3. People at work get mad at each other all the time, and they can't easily get away from the sources of their distress -- otherwise, they'll be written up for attendance. Sometimes the boss is a jerk, or perceived that way. Sometimes employees are disciplined or fired, and they think the decision was really unfair. Sometimes you have those adultery or domestic violence situations I've been talking about. If any of these occur and a weapon is handy, it's likely you'll have trouble. On the other hand, if the weapon is back home, that might give the upset employee just enough time to calm down and realize what a terrible mistake he'd be making if he acted on his feelings.
4. The adage "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," which (I think) has validity in the outside world, doesn't apply very much in the workplace, where the environment is more controlled and controllable.
5. All that having been said, there may be justifications for weapons for security personnel or other specially designated employees if needed to maintain order.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010