The permissive and participatory conduct which mostemployees take for granted, eventually escalates into themore serious assaultive behavior commonly referred to asemployee on employee workplace violence starts withinnuendos, a bad word, or simple jokes taken out of context or used to inflame another. Initiation of a proper andthorough investigation is possible under the auspices of aThreat Assessment Team. Banter between employees if leftalone by supervisors becomes tense and often results in amore aggressive response. The truth of the matter is that inmost cases this banter is perceived as harmless shop talk.

Supervisors often believe that this healthy shop talk buildscamaraderie and does not detract from performance. However,such permissive behavior empowers the potential perpetratorwho may feel he enjoys the partiality of the supervisor.After all, he does his job, pumps out the numbers and meetsthe "bosses" demands. Regardless of the relationship and hisperformance, definite and clear action should be takeninitially to curtail the potential of an explosive situationfrom impacting the workplace. The spontaneous reaction bythe victim although surprising could be sufficiently volatileto affect bystanders as well.

Remembering that the business owner is ultimatelyresponsible for the actions they fail to take in anysituation places the decision in question. The prevention ofworkplace violence requires a proactive response. Securityis everyone's responsibility but ultimately management's duty. The exposure to violent behavior by non employees is yet another issue which will be presented in future articles.

In a permissive environment, the uninformed employee has noidea that emotions tied into simple acts of harassment arean explosive combination often leading to a spontaneouscounter response by the victim. While the response isunfortunate in terms of who ultimately precipitated theincident, the victim who is now taking the action into hishands becomes the aggressor and must be held accountable.

Using a Threat Assessment Team or a trained group ofindividuals would be the proper approach in this scenarioand in future incidents. The conduct of the ThreatAssessment Process would involve the total analysis ofinformation and intelligence available about theparticipants, the incident and the environment in order torender a fair and impartial outcome. Being properly trainedis key. Knowledge of how to conduct a fact findinginvestigation is critical to the successful determination ofthe type of disciplinary action or criminal prosecution it might bring. The process should be synchronized and wellcoordinated and reflective of the organization's leadershipteam, if possible to insure that the preliminaryresponsibility of conducting the fact finding investigativeprocess does not fall on the shoulder's of the SecurityDirector long after the fact. The major players of the Threat Assessment Team might include at a minimum: the Immediate Supervisor, Personnel & Human Resource Managers, Employee Assistance, Safety and Security Managers to insure a thorough Threat Assessment (Investigation) is conducted.

In Assessing the above scenario the root cause of theconfrontation was the unabated name calling, verbal abuseand innuendos, created by a permissive and improperly supervised environment. Supervisors who fail to step in to correct this type of behavior can be held civilly liable and responsible for their failure to act early or appropriately to prevent escalation or confrontations. In cases of death or serious injury between employees or customers, wrongful death law suits are often filed in addition to criminal prosecution. Not knowing is no longer a legitimate excuse.

When supervisors fail to act appropriately, management has the burden of investigating the incident, dealing with the issue of the aggressor over the contributory behavior of the instigator and decide on the appropriate progressive disciplinary actions (or if necessary, referral to local police for prosecution).

And, so while a Zero Tolerance Policy is necessary andhighly recommended, it should not be an absolute standard inadministering discipline until the "root cause" of thecontributory behavior becomes clear through the AssessmentProcess. When controlling or addressing the potential fruitsof unwelcome behavior or to more appropriately, preventincidents dealing with a Workplace Security Issue, everysituation should not be resolved in the same manner with thesame administrative decision. Any broad-brush approach toenforcing the Zero Tolerance Policy sours the innocentbystanders and prejudices the potential witnesses who mayfear retaliation or retribution, factors which may furthercomplicate the disciplinary process and/or criminalreferral.

Felix P. Nater is President of Nater Associates, Ltd. a security management consulting firm specializing in workplace security and workplace violence prevention. He retired as a U. S. Postal Inspector in 2001 with over 30 years of criminal and security experience. The last two years have been spent consulting to small to midsize companies on security related issues affecting the workplace. He has a FREE on-line newsletter entitled "Workplace Violence Crime Prevention and Security Awareness which you can subscribe to through his website at http://www.naterassociates.com.