Violence Against Human Resources Professionals Increasing

On Thursday May 14, Bill Larson, director of human resources at Grace General Hospital in Winnipeg, Manitoba, learned something many HR professionals never do: that the practice of human resources can be a dangerous business.

Unfortunately, the lesson cost him his life.

Shortly before 3 p.m. that day, a former hospital maintenance worker walked into Larson’s office and stabbed him to death with a hunting knife. Immediately afterward, his attacker calmly handed the knife to a doctor in the hallway and allowed himself to be taken into custody. He now awaits trial in Canada on first-degree murder charges.

What moved the ex-employee to such brutality is anyone’s guess. Sure, Larson knew his attacker. In fact, Larson had met with him and a union representative earlier that day over a disagreement relating to the employee’s dismissal. But upon returning to his office, Larson commented to coworkers that the meeting had gone well; that things were proceeding "appropriately." Apparently, the employee disagreed.

Is Larson’s death an isolated incident; a sad but highly unusual tragedy caused by someone who "snapped" unpredictably? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. According to workplace violence experts, HR professionals become the targets of distraught employees anywhere from 60 to 99 percent of time. A quick search of newspaper clipping over the past few years confirms this chilling estimate.

In 1995, Tracy Stevens, a 25-year-old HR administrator for Banc One in Columbus, Ohio, was gunned down in her home by an employee who had been terminated for sexual harassment. Killed along with her were her 36-year-old husband and four-month-old daughter.

In 1993, Sheila Cascade, a 52-year HR manager at the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. in Clearwater, Florida, was shot in the office cafeteria by a former manager who had been fired 10 months earlier for misconduct. Although Cascade survived the shooting, she suffered critical head wounds. Three of her colleagues, however, weren’t so "lucky." They died instantly.

And in 1992, human resource specialist Michael Konz was killed at the General Dynamics plant in San Diego by a former employee who’d been fired for habitual tardiness and absences. His death came just seven months after the killing of Tom Erickson, the vice president of HR for Elgar Corp., another San Diego-based company. The killer in that case was also a disgruntled former employee.

Add to all these fatal acts of violence countless incidents of verbal intimidation, bomb threats, chair throwing, car scratching, punching, grabbing and menacing phone calls late at night and you begin to see that HR professionals do not always deal with the warm-and-fuzzy side of human nature. Sometimes, the job can be downright dark and deadly.

"Employees who engage in violent behavior have a lot of unfocused anger and the way they connect that anger to management is via the people they know and have had contact with," explains Joseph Kinney of the National Safe Workplace Institute in Monroe, North Carolina. Who is that? None other than human resources.

Sadly, even though there is a lot HR professionals can do to protect themselves from violent outbursts, instead they often unwittingly increase their own vulnerability. How? By refusing to believe it will happen to them, by failing to adequately prepare for the worst, and by handling potentially violent situations poorly.

"In my experience, denial and under-preparation are the common denominators of companies that have been involved with violent situations," explains John Hopkins, president of CASE Management Associates in Tyler, Texas. Kinney agrees, albeit a more bluntly: "What makes me sick is to see HR people who haven’t done jack-squat to prepare for violence. What? They think it can never happen to them?"

The refusal of HR people to acknowledge the risks of their profession is surprising given the prevalence of violent outbreaks at work. During an average week, 20 people are murdered while at work and 18,000 more are assaulted, according to the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety in Bethesda, Maryland. In fact, homicide is the second leading cause of on-the-job fatalities. While the majority of these tragedies are the result of robberies caused by members of the general public, a good 10 percent of them are perpetrated by disgruntled employees seeking revenge.

Furthermore, although the U.S. Postal Service has become the nation’s poster child for workplace violence, the fact is these incidents can — and do — happen anywhere. Dr. Manny Tau, a threat management specialist based in Mission Viejo, California, has been called in to deal with violent outbreaks at coffee shops, engineering firms, cruise lines, utility companies, manufacturers and even the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. "Any time you involve people, you involve chemistry and that involves conflict," he says.

Although the number of workplace murders in North America has dropped slightly since 1994, the achievement is nothing to write home about. Experts believe once the economy slows down and unemployment begins to climb again, the savagery will return at an even higher rate. This is because all the societal factors that contribute to violence are still there: racial tension, drug and alcohol abuse, the breakdown of the nuclear family, financial pressures and the widespread availability of firearms. Of course, the media also plays a part. In America, the most brutal killers wind up on the cover of Time Magazine.

Why HR?

To understand why HR professionals are in the cross hairs, you need understand a bit what causes employees to lash out. "Invariably, people who threaten violence in the workplace are those who feel unfairly treated by their employers," explains Bruce T. Blythe, president and CEO of Crisis Management International, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia. The perceived unfairness usually relates to something within HR’s domain.

Just take a look at the "reasons" for violent outbreaks that have occurred in the last few months:

-In April, a 35-year-old accountant for the Connecticut Lottery killed four of his bosses and then himself because he was angry about a salary dispute and lack of perceived promotional opportunities.

-Also in April, a meeting about work schedules at the U.S. Department of Agriculture office in (TK) angered one employee so much that he shot and killed three coworkers.

-And last December, five supervisors were killed at CALTRANS in Orange, California, by an employee who was upset at having been fired for stealing.

Wages, career development, work schedules and disciplinary practices are not the only HR activities that trigger employee anger. Paychecks are an especially potent source of friction. "Most of the aggression and harassment I’ve experienced was related to people’s paychecks: garnishments, insurance co-pays, overtime calculations and even taxes," explains Bill Young, director of human resources at the Pennsylvania College of Pediatric Medicine in Philadelphia. "I don’t know how many times I swore I was not going to take a bullet for the IRS."

Ironically, even some of the things HR does on behalf of employees can backfire and put HR specialists at risk. Jim Hardeman, executive director of Workplace Violence Interventions and Strategies in Plymouth, Mass., recalls a time when he faced harassment as the corporate EAP manager at Polaroid Corp. "I had just started mandatory training on guidelines for our workplace violence prevention program and a number of employee were pissed off," he explains. "People were used to saying whatever they pleased and they believed the program interfered with their rights. Employees got very angry with me and starting writing on my car and calling me ‘Ghandi.’ It got so bad I had to park directly in front of the guard station for weeks."

When it comes to dealing with troubled employees, however, almost nothing makes HR more vulnerable to physical harm than disciplinary actions and terminations. Why? Because if an employee is feeling unfairly treated to begin with and then an HR person puts their job in even greater jeopardy, HR becomes the identified enemy; the focal point of all that employee’s anger. These activities suck HR into what Kinney calls the zone of danger. "Whenever there is a threat situation and an HR person is involved they are considered to be in the zone of danger and must be protected" he says.

Three years ago, after terminating a probational employee, Belynda L. Gauthier, HR director, Louisiana State Employees Group Benefits Program, was told by a co-worker that the ex-employee had threatened to harm her. His parting words were, "this is how people get hurt at the Post Office." "Do I occasionally fear for my safety?" asks Gauthier. "Definitely! I have had our security guards walking me to my car for weeks at a time."

Denial and ignorance increase HR’s risk

With all this violent potential swarming about, why aren’t HR professionals doing more to protect themselves? Why is that HR will eagerly provide security management training for supervisors and implement company-wide violence prevention policies, yet fail to adequately safeguard the people within the HR department itself?

Denial is one reason, Blythe says. "Most of us have had the dream of falling sometime in our lives, but before we splat on the ground we wake up," he explains. "This is because our minds won’t allow us to go down to the dark shaded areas and really think things through." Unfortunately, this avoidance gets HR into trouble time and time again.

Charles Goldstein, senior partner with Goldstein, Kennedy and Petito in Century City, California, has worked with many HR people involved in terminations. His clients have been lunged at over desks, stalked, and confronted with weapons during disciplinary hearings. "One HR person had to terminate a person who was an explosives expert, and for months, he was concerned about opening his car door," Goldstein says.

Because too many HR professionals take the it-won’t-happen-to-me approach, many of they things they do — or don’t do — in the course of their jobs can actually increase their vulnerability. In fact, the very policies created by HR people to prevent violence can put them in harm’s way.

According to Blythe, most companies now have zero-tolerance policies that state that intimidation, threats and weapons possession will not be allowed at all and that anyone engaged such behaviors will be terminated. The problem is, when HR professionals hear about these situations, they are then forced to be the bad guy and fire the employee. "These policies look good on paper, but HR gets into trouble trying to implement them," he explains. How? By not respecting the dignity of the person who is being disciplined or terminated.

"What gets HR into trouble is when they ask the person if he actually made the threats he was accused of and that person says ‘no’," Blythe says. Despite this, HR still fires that person. "At that point, you’ve just pushed the employee’s integrity button. And anybody whose integrity is questioned is going to lash out."

Blythe believes many HR professionals create their own problems by not being very sensitive when it comes to dealing with aggressive employees. "I don’t see many HR people building up the dignity of people when firing or disciplining them," he says. "It’s always you’ve done this or that, your performance is down, you’ve been late to work, etc."

Unfortunately, what this does is strip away the last remaining shreds of dignity from a person who’s already unstable. When this happens, experts say the employee feels completely justified in acting out. It may sound perverse, but integrity is so important to these people that when they are attacked they will do anything get it back. "I’ve known people who acted out and knew it wasn’t right but felt they had no choice," Blythe says.

To avoid inflaming and already flammable situation, what HR should be doing in these difficult situations is reframing the issue. Don’t make it sound as if you are accusing the employee. Simply state that other employees have begun to feel fearful and that according to company policy, you are required to take action. This does two things: it avoids blame and it takes the responsibility for taking action off of HR. "To defuse these situations, HR should act like the good guy," Blythe says. "Blame it on attorneys, OSHA, lawsuits — whatever — just make it seem as if your hands are tied. That you don’t necessarily want to fire the person, but you are being forced into it."

When terminating aggressive employees, HR professionals should also make darn sure they find something good to say about the employee: that they are loyal, they don’t abuse break time, that they’ve put in a lot of time with the company. By building up the person’s dignity, HR decreases the likelihood that the employee will see HR as part of the larger corporate conspiracy that is out to get him.

In addition to poorly executed terminations, another way HR professionals increase their vulnerability to violence is by believing the employee assistance program will take care of matters. While EAPs may help employees deal with stress before it gets out of hand, they are typically not very well equipped at dealing with employees who’ve already become uncorked. This is because they are generalists in behavioral problems, not specialists in violent behavior. Sending an aggressive worker to an EAP is like sending someone with a brain tumor to a primary care physician.

Another problem with EAPs is that staff members must respect confidentiality guidelines. In 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, an employee with Standard Gravure in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the plant armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and four other guns. Within 30 minutes, 20 employees had been shot, seven of whom died. Wesbecker had been placed on permanent disability leave the previous year because of mental illness.

According to Blythe, the company’s EAP specialists had been involved with Wesbecker but had "completed botched" the situation because they failed to notify management about threats he had made. "Because EAPs have confidentiality concerns, they should not be put in charge of potentially violent employees," he says. Instead, he recommends that violence experts be brought in to deal with these employees. That way, management stays informed of any potential threats and can take appropriate action.

Contingency planning is the key to safety

Even when HR professionals do recognize the risks involved with aggressive employees, many of them still have a tendency to overlook their own physical safety by not adequately thinking through the "what-ifs" — i.e., what if the employee starts yelling, what if the employee lunges across the desk or what if the employee is spotted with a weapon?

Part of this is due to the it-won’t-happen-to-me syndrome. But Jim Hardeman believes it’s also because HR people do not typically have the knowledge or skills to conduct their own safety planning. Because of this, they’ll fail to notify security prior to a termination, they’ll neglect to have another person in the room with them, they’ll fail to think through an emergency escape plan, or they’ll leave things on their desks than can be used to harm them. (See sidebar: "How to terminate potential violent employees — and live")

All of this can be remedied by the appropriate training and assistance from workplace violence consultants, but companies have to be willing to make the investment. "This is an investment that is absolutely instrumental in saving the lives of HR people," Hardeman says.

If you have any doubt about this, just talk to Manny Tau, who helps companies plan for such deadly what-if scenarios. His work involves threat assessments, employee interviews, surveillance, work with local law enforcement, and even sitting in with HR professionals during potentially violent situations. In the last year, he helped one HR professional avoid being beaten to death with a baseball bat and prevented another from being physically attacked during termination proceedings.

In the end, the only way to avoid becoming a target is to think seriously about how easily you can become one. Don’t wait until a situation gets out of hand to start planning for violence. That’s like searching for the water main in your house after a pipe breaks. Instead, recognize the threat exists always.

Furthermore, just because someone has been terminated successfully, don’t assume you are out of hot water. Experience proves there is no statute of limitations on when angry ex-employees can lash out. Fourteen months after Clifton McCree was fired from his beach-cleaning job with the City of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, he returned to city offices and killed four people, including the person who recommended that he be fired. Two other employees were badly wounded.

Finally, just because you or your colleagues haven’t experienced the tight chest, sleepless nights and coppery taste of fear that violent employees create, don’t assume you never will. A 1997 study by Thomas Staffing Services in Irvine, California, revealed that the HR executives least likely to be concerned with violence were those who claimed to "never have had a problem" with it.

But then again, neither had Bill Larson, Tracy Stevens, Michael Konz or Tom Erickson. Who knows? If they had, maybe they’d be alive today.

-- ©Workforce Magazine. (The article originally appeared as a cover story.)