The Danger of Group Thinking

Workplace violence prevention is too complicated to leave to a committee, unless we can find a better way to prepare its members for the task.

Am I taking a too critical view of this subject? Possibly. But let me share with you another story, this one of a particular situation that I thought, finally, presented a clear-cut case of an employee who showed enough of a propensity for violence that my company's cross-functional team would act in accordance with our policy and terminate his employment.

The event occurred when the employee left work and stopped at a bar on the way home. There, an altercation ensued, and the employee went homeâ¬but not before slashing the tires of the car belonging to the other party. Later that evening the "wronged" party, after repairing the tire, drove to our employee's home to address the grievance. That was when things got really nasty.

The employee exchanged words with his visitors from his porch. Then he entered his house and fetched his pistol. Upon returning outside, he fired several rounds at the now-fleeing subjects. One of those individuals was fatally wounded.

For me, the obvious decision was to remove the employee's access to company property and terminate his employment immediately. Easy decision, right? Nope. Line management argued that the event took place off company time and property, and that we shouldn't rush to any conclusion. Some suggested that we suspend him without pay but allow him access to company property during the suspension period. His defense attorney was arguing self-defense, and I was reminded that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

No wonder we CSOs secretly tend to hold little confidence in the decisions made by these committees. Never mind that the sheriff told me that a confession was taken the night of the shooting. No one was disputing the fact that our employee had fired a weapon at another human being. I argued that letting someone who had acted in that manner gain access to our facilities and employees was irresponsible no matter what the courts decided. In fact, I pointed out, the new level of stress in the employee's life would contribute to the risk factors associated with another potential act of violence. It might have been an act of defense, but it was also an act that included the use of violence.

This incident demonstrates, in an extreme way, that working as a group to manage risk is not a simple affair. Now, when I read the headlines about a workplace violence incident, I no longer ask myself how a company could have missed the things being reported before a shooting occurred. I wonder instead who in the company knew there were signs of violent behavior but was unable to convince the company to act.