Instead, he says, contrast the emerging approach is “zero incident,” which focuses on reducing “at risk” behaviors and destructive organizational practices to attack the root causes of injuries so that an organization can intervene before incidents happen. An example of an actual workplace violence policy written using the “zero incident” approach is the following:

“It is our intent to create a work environment where all employees are safe and secure from hazards. To ensure this happens we are placing a high priority on implementing practices and procedures that prevent work violence, and strongly encourage the support of all employees in helping us to create an accident and hazard free environment.”

“The difference in the two approaches is that one focuses on prevention while the other focuses on reaction,” Nixon says. The zero incident policy includes prevention efforts such as implementing a comprehensive workplace violence prevention policy and a threat management team, training supervisors and employees to identify early warning signs, learning how to defuse aggressive situations and implementing appropriate ways to intervene to address potential violence. Best practices include reporting threats and incidents and focusing on creating a security conscious work environment.”

It also involves protecting your employees, Nixon says, which means activating a crisis response plan and an active shooter protocol with law enforcement. “Protect includes not just [physically] protecting employees, but also the organization’s resources by having well thought out and crafted plans to minimize disruptions to the organization’s operations,” Nixon says.

Workplace violence, however, goes beyond your brand and can impact your company’s pocket book in terms of litigation fees, fines and more.

Under OSHA’s General Duty Clause, every employee is guaranteed a safe place to work. Not doing so could mean a workplace violence citation that carries with it civil penalties of up to $7,000 per violation for serious violations, or up to $70,000 for every willful or repeat violation.

For example, in Secretary of Labor v. Megawest Financial, Inc., 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA 1337) (1995), OSHA issued a serious violation citation to Megawest Financial, Inc., who owned and managed several apartment communities, for violations of the General Duty Clause by failing for furnish a workplace free from the “serious recognized hazard of violence in that security measures were not taken to minimize the risk or eliminate employee exposure to assault and battery by tenants of the apartment complex.”

The citation was issued after Megawest refused to provide additional security for the apartment office staff following several incidents where a property manager was sprayed in the face with mace, struck with a telephone and threatened by tenants. One of the property managers was even assaulted by a tenant while the OSHA compliance officer was on site conducting an interview.

While Megawest was ultimately successful, the case demonstrated OSHA’s willingness to apply the General Duty Clause to incidents of workplace violence.

In another case, OSHA provided criminal penalties as a result a shooting in 2003 that killed six employees in a Lockheed Martin plant in Meridian, Miss. The suit was filed by the daughter of one of the six victims. The shooter worked at the Lockheed facility for 20 years before the shooting, in which he also took his own life.

The suit alleged that some of the employees who worked alongside the shooter had been complaining for months that their coworker had threatened them and used racial slurs. And, a year before the shootings, Lockheed told him that his continued employment would be contingent on completing a counseling program.

Ultimately, the employee was cleared to work after just three counseling sessions. Later that year, the shooter was attending a mandatory diversity training program when he walked out of the class and returned with a shotgun and a rifle.

The suit claimed that NEAS, Inc. (the counselor and settling party), failed to provide its affiliate with a full background for the referral. Instead, NEAS allegedly stated only that the employee had “boundary/communication issues.”

According to Felix Nater, CSC of Nater Associates, Ltd., “The laws are not sensitive to the ‘budget is not there’ excuse. Under some court decisions, if you failed to address security measures in your organization, that is no longer a viable excuse you can make.”

Proper training for every employee is key, says Nater, and he often sees it done the wrong way. “Don’t put people in a lecture setting, where everybody receives the same training,” he says. “It’s inappropriate to do that because everyone has different responsibilities at different levels. Training is important, but if it’s not properly conducted or managed, it’s worthless. I think that workplace violence training needs to be tiered; employees first need to be told the policy, the acceptable behavior, the reporting procedures and how they can help maintain a secure workplace. Then you take that to the management. Start small and go higher up.”

Technology also might help, Nater says, however; technology alone is not the solution. “What good is the deployment of technology without training that explains the value? The administered policy will not contain the emotions of a vengeful person, but the involved supervisor can have an interdictive value,” he says.

Nater recommends establishing clear reporting procedures. “Proactive involvement helps to create a supportive environment in a workplace setting where the need to take appropriate action is supported because management is willing to commit resources. Terminating employees because that is the necessary act must be a guided process to ensure a prudent approach to minimize the need to get even. Most terminations are a business decision that is handled by an insensitive manager.”

Nater suggests the following training to help mitigate the risk of workplace violence, including:

1. Conduct security awareness training down to the lowest level.
2. Select the optimum termination environment.
3. Include informational mailings with paychecks.
4. Designate a time of year as Workplace Violence Prevention Awareness. The key will be the workplace culture that discourages such feelings.
5. Incorporate Employee Assistance Programs as part of a workplace Wellness Program.
6. Establish clear reporting instructions that places accountability and responsibility to report and document observations.
7. Have an anonymous reporting system to protect the source.
8. Conduct background checks that offer more insight into the process to protect against the “vacationing” criminal or predator or falsification of applications.
9. Employees undergoing difficult marriage relationships should be encouraged to seek help.
10. Provide training for leadership in workplace violence prevention for all levels of management.
Knowing what to do and how to react can help to mitigate the threat of workplace violence and protect as many as possible from the violent act. “Stop practicing theory and deal with situational awareness,” he says.

And finally, but not last, Nater says, formulate a threat assessment team approach composed of key players to review and evaluate reports or observations of potential situations to prevent escalation. “Consider situations that might escalate as justification for convening the threat assessment team,” he says. “This is particularly important in workplace environments where confidentiality issues protect privacy of individuals from external disclosure of information.”

“Workplace violence prevention is no simple proposition, but it can be done,” Nater adds. “In an era when tough talk and catchy rhetoric too often eclipse any real action, some organizations are beginning to understand that an effective workplace violence prevention program is smart business. It is about protecting their most important asset – their employees and to maintain a positive reputation with their customers, shareholders and the media, while minimizing disruptions to normal operations. Companies that take workplace violence seriously, who focus on prevention and understand the importance of implementing a comprehensive approach will in the long run come out ahead.”

The standard will outline security prevention and intervention strategies as well as the procedures for detecting, investigating, managing and addressing threatening behavior or violent episodes that occur in a workplace or in association with it or its employees. Rebecca A. Speer, an employment lawyer and member of ASIS and SHRM, chairs the committee responsible for developing the WVPI Standard.

Speer says that the standard will serve as a unique resource for employers as they consider ways to better prevent and respond to workplace violence. The Standard recites “best practices” for workplace violence prevention and can be used to guide corporate efforts in this arena. The Standard is fairly comprehensive and represents countless hours of work by professionals working on all sides of this issue – from security and HR professionals, to psychologists, employment attorneys, academicians, members of law enforcement, and others. “It is the hope and expectation of the entire Committee that the Standard will help educate, enlighten and motivate employers on the often simple steps they can take to address this very real, very substantial, and very consequential workplace problem,” she says.