W
Weapons
The possession and use of weapons, both lethal and less-than-lethal, in retail loss prevention is a subject which has been long debated. The majority opinion is that only rarely is there a need for weapons, and we agree with this position.
We emphatically state that any weapons possessed or used must be properly licensed and the user properly trained and licensed. Training in the use of weapons should be repeated semiannually and qualifying in the use of the weapon documented. Weapons, if kept on company property, must always be stored securely. Any use of weapons must be approved by the highest loss prevention a uthority.
Rarely, an executive protection assignment will best be performed if the protecting agent is armed. In these situations, care must be exercised to assure that all laws are followed with respect to the carrying of concealed weapons.
Another possible situation in which weapons may be desirable is when staking out a location when there is credible information indicating it will be the target of a robbery or burglary. Normally, such surveillances will be the primary responsibility of the police, with security personnel serving in a support role. Even so, if the police have no objections (or suggest it), qualified security personnel participating in the surveillance may be better served by being armed.
When either contract or proprietary security officers are required to patrol the exterior of building at night, particularly if these are locations are known as high crime areas, we feel it is permissible for them to be armed with pepper spray (also known as OC spray, from Oleoresin Capsicum), which is a lachrymatory agent (a chemical compound that irritates the eyes to cause tears, pain, and even temporary blindness) that is used in personal self-defense. Pepper-type spray was formerly often called “mace,” which is no longer in general use. These security officers may also carry a baton (provided they meet local and state law requirements).
While we see no objections to the use of taser or so-called stun guns as a self-defense nonlethal weapon by properly trained personnel, our experience has shown such devices are not popular with loss prevention personnel. The taser weapon, which shoots small darts on thin wires into an aggressor to disable him or her by an electric shock, has proved very effective with law enforcement personnel; however, this weapon has not yet been universally available to non-LEOs. Stun guns operate on the same principle as tasers but require direct contact with the aggressor. An electrical high voltage (50,000 volts) but low amperage current disturbs the subject’s central nervous system, causing disablement. While available to civilians and generally unregulated, they are not seen in wide use by loss prevention.
In summary, deadly weapons should be used only by properly trained personnel and only when there is a clear and present danger to their lives or the lives of others. Nonlethal (control) weapons may be used, if authorized and legal, when their use is reasonable and can be fully justified.
Why Do Our Employees Steal?
Based upon almost 30 years of personal research experience, I can testify that explaining why employees steal from their employers is an extremely difficult task. What makes identifying the cause of employee dishonesty so difficult is that there is no single factor or theory that can explain each and every occurrence. Instead, social scientists have concluded that a variety of factors contribute to the occurrence of theft behavior. Three logically required conditions have to be present before a theft can occur. This is sometimes called the “theft triangle.” First, the deviant act must be motivated by one or more precipitating factors. Second, there must be ample opportunity present for the theft to occur. Third, there must be a perceived absence of deterrence. In the following, I will discuss each of these three necessary conditions.
I. Motivations for Dishonesty
Most people employed in business organizations are conventionally socialized individuals. Generally speaking, the vast majority of our employees are law-abiding citizens who know the difference between right and wrong. After all, to be hired they have survived a pretty extensive interview and screening process. For a theft to occur, then, it is necessary for these persons to rationalize their law-breaking activity as completely justified under the circumstances. These motivating circumstances can originate either from within the work organization or can be the result of personal problems external to the work setting.
External Economic Pressures
There is extensive debate among both scholars and security experts regarding the extent to which external (or non-work) economic pressures provide the principal motivation for employee dishonesty. Despite extensive anecdotal supporting evidence, John Clark and I concluded in our 1983 book, Theft By Employees, that most incidents of employee pilferage were unrelated to an employee’s particular economic situation. That is, highly paid employees reported taking property from the company just as often as did poorly paid employees. Our data suggested that the adequacy of one’s compensation is extremely relative. Employee satisfaction with pay seemed to be independent of the absolute amount of money received. Moreover, employees who reported having personal economic problems were no more theft-prone than those who did not. This research study conducted two decades ago concluded that most employees do not steal from the company as a way of resolving their personal debts and other external economic pressures. This may not be the case today. In fact, as personal debt piles up, contemporary employees may be feeling a much stronger economic pinch than they did 20 years ago when I first started researching employee dishonesty.
Some employees do seem to be strongly motivated by what criminologist Donald Cressey called “non-sharable problems.” The best examples of this situation are the rare persons who steal relatively large amounts of money from their employers. In his now-classic study of convicted embezzlers published in 1953, Cressey found that most became involved in “trust violations” as a result of some personal financial problem that they could not share with anyone else. Perhaps they had incurred a sizable gambling debt, were involved in an expensive love affair, were secretly addicted to drugs, or made a bad financial mistake with the company’s assets. All the above are examples of “non-sharable problems” which precipitated the taking of a large amount of their employer’s money to solve these personal problems. While large-scale embezzlements do occur—often crippling the business victimized—we must remember that these large-dollar thefts are quite rare. The typical employee thief is not a cash embezzler but rather a person who pilfers much smaller amounts of company property and money on a more regular basis. It is this more prevalent “nickel and dime” theft activity that over time costs companies far more in lost assets than all the embezzlers combined. It is for this reason that we need to look beyond purely economic motivations for an explanation of employee theft. The negative effects of employee dishonesty cannot be measured in economic costs alone. Quite obviously there are also social, psychological, and ethical impacts to consider. Supervisors can easily appreciate how dishonesty affects the social relationships among every employee in the work milieu—both those who are and who are not involved.
Job Dissatisfaction
A principal negative effect of pervasive employee dishonesty is a deterioration of workplace morale. Where theft is widespread, employees tend not to trust one another. The secretive nature of deviant activity tends to constrain on-the-job interaction and after-work socializing. The esprit de corps that characterizes successful businesses is often not present in the company filled with deviant workers. (The only exception to this may include groups of deviant employees who get together after work for the specific purpose of conspiring to steal from their employers.) As a result of inadequate communications, we often observe a lack of helpfulness to fellow workers, customers and clients. With limited peer cooperation, the employee’s personal identification with the company may begin to erode. With this may come inattentiveness to job responsibilities.
Research has shown, for example, that deviant employees are less likely to report shoplifting incidents and are more likely to engage in sloppy workmanship. The deviant employee is significantly more likely to also engage in a wide range of counterproductive activities, such as absenteeism, sick leave abuse, on-the-job drug use and alcohol intoxication, workplace accidents and, eventually, turnover. We will also see that employee deviance is often the result of job dissatisfaction. However, it is also true that job satisfaction can sometimes be adversely affected by a prevailing atmosphere of worker deviance. In theft-filled companies, employees often grumble and complain and are generally a fairly unhappy group of people. This general feeling of malaise eventually affects those who are not stealing from the company. For example, the physical devices and security counter-measures that management often installs to deter high theft levels sometimes make honest employees feel as if they are not trusted. Sometimes this “we don’t trust anyone” attitude can aggravate an existing adversarial relationship between management and labor. In short, as a consequence of employee dishonesty, the entire social atmosphere of the workplace may seriously deteriorate.
A commonly expressed dishonesty theory assumes that employee theft is caused by job dissatisfaction. This explanation is based on the assumption that unhappy employees will steal from their employers in order to resolve feelings of inequity. Theft is viewed as the employee’s way of “getting back” at an employer who does not provide a satisfactory work experience. In other words, employees “rip-off” their companies when their employer is perceived as “ripping” them off (Altheide et al., 1978).
One of the most commonly observed dishonesty explanations is based upon the assumption that disgruntled employees will steal from their employers in order to resolve feelings of perceived inequity in the way in which they have been treated. Theft is viewed as the employee’s way of “getting back” at an employer who does not provide a satisfactory work experience. In other words, employees “rip off” the company when their employer is perceived as “ripping” them off (Altheide et al., 1978).
Although the job dissatisfaction explanation makes plenty of intuitive sense, until recently there was surprisingly little empirical evidence to confirm its accuracy. The relationship between job dissatisfaction and workplace deviance was first tested by Mangione and Quinn (1975), who found only mild support among males 30 and older. Later in 1982, John Clark and I examined the job dissatisfaction hypothesis with a much larger data set, discovering a more consistent pattern of support. Among employees in three different industries studied, those dissatisfied with their present jobs and looking for another job were more involved in employee theft. Retail employee thieves were most unhappy with the inadequate “task challenges” of their work and the fact that their employers seemed not to care about them. In the hospital, employees who take property were most unhappy about their employer’s lack of caring, in addition to poor treatment by immediate supervisors and limited job responsibility. Although slightly less influential in the manufacturing plant, deviant employees were again more likely to express dissatisfaction both with their employers and with limited span of authority. In all three industries studied, employees who felt that their employers were dishonest, unfair, and uncaring about their workers were significantly more involved in theft and other forms of workplace deviance. Immediate supervisors were often viewed as the source of the workplace inequity, since employees usually view their supervisors as the personification of their employers.
There is substantial documentation for the job dissatisfaction explanation. For example, Jason Ditton (1977), maintains that from the earliest days of the industrial revolution both employees and their employers have assumed that a certain portion of one’s wages were represented by non-monetary perks. Other researchers studying a variety of work and occupational experiences have verified the existence of these “wages in kind” that over the years have become an institutionalized part of many work experiences (Henry, 1978).
In recent years, more and more scholars have found empirical support for the relationship between job dissatisfaction and employee dishonesty. Generally speaking, if the prevailing worker attitudes toward the organization, management, and supervisors are positive, one finds lower levels of all types of deviant behavior in the workplace, including theft and dishonesty. However, if the employees: 1) feel exploited by the work organization, 2) believe that supervisors are not interested in them as persons, and 3) are generally unhappy with their work situation—we find higher than average levels of theft and deviance. High levels of turnover in the retail industry can be viewed as a barometer of this pervasive worker dissatisfaction problem.
In summary, one of the most commonly observed dishonesty explanations is based upon the assumption that disgruntled employees will steal from their employers in order to resolve feelings of perceived inequity in the way in which they have been treated. Theft is viewed as the employee’s way of “getting back” at an employer who does not provide a satisfactory work experience. In other words, employees “rip off” the company when their employer is perceived as “ripping” them off (Altheide et al., 1978).
II. The Opportunity Factor
In this section, I will examine the “opportunity” component of the theft triangle. The amount, the frequency, and the prevalence of theft are each determined by the possible range of theft opportunities. Some jobs permit more opportunities for stealing as compared to other occupations, professions, or positions. If the product is without much value or no cash handling occurs, we would expect correspondingly less theft. Alternatively, if there are many things of value that can be taken from the workplace, we should not be surprised to discover higher prevalence levels of theft.
Unfortunately, almost everywhere one looks in retailing, we can find desirable merchandise of significant value, as well as plentiful amounts of cash. Given the high levels of opportunity for theft, it not surprising that employee dishonesty abounds in retailing. In fact, perhaps we should ask the question in the opposite direction, namely, “why isn’t there even more theft given the numerous opportunities for taking things in the retail store?”
Most readers would probably agree that employee theft is already bad enough. In the most recently conducted 2002 National Retail Security Survey, for example, we discovered that senior retail loss prevention executives reported that nearly one-half of their inventory shrinkage (48%) was attributable to employee dishonesty.
Reduce the levels of opportunity, and theft rates should decline. The solution to the problem seems so obvious. Lowering levels of sales associate dishonesty should be the direct result of strictly limiting an employee’s access both to money and merchandise. However, as we eventually discovered with shoplifting, simply constraining access can backfire, since physical controls can seriously interfere with the ability of the retail employee to do their job. Just as the shopper must be able to touch the merchandise to facilitate sales, the sales associate must also have unrestricted access to both merchandise and cash to serve the customer and to complete their purchase transactions. In other words, locking things up, putting items under the counter, or physically chaining things down may not be the ideal answer to this problem.
When I first began researching this topic 30 years ago, I remember reading a variety of articles on the subject. At the time it seemed like they all focused on the opportunity factor.
Then it seemed that most security experts believed that unlimited opportunity was the predominant cause of dishonesty in the workplace. Virtually all argued that if items are not properly secured, eventually your merchandise will be taken. At the time it was very common to believe that all employees are vulnerable to temptation. While most experts feel that this is an overly pessimistic image of the typical employee, it is undeniable that opportunity can facilitate theft and dishonesty in the workplace. Given its obvious importance, I find it interesting that there has been so little systematic research on the role that opportunity plays in the employee theft equation.
In our book, Theft by Employees, published in 1983, John Clark and I compared theft levels among the various occupations in three different industries, namely, retailing, healthcare, and manufacturing. Generally speaking, employees working in those jobs possessing the greatest uncontrolled access to money and property did report slightly higher levels of theft. It is also important to note, however, that the majority of employees with high opportunity to steal were not involved in dishonest activity. In other words, from my own research and other scholarly studies, it has become clear that just having access to things of value does not necessarily produce theft. Opportunity also has an important subjective dimension. Three factors that can affect the subjective value of merchandise include social desirability, concealability, and proximity.
Social Desirability
Obviously, money has objective (or extrinsic) value. However, the same cannot always be said for merchandise, which has both objective (extrinsic) and subjective (intrinsic) value. Some merchandise in our stores is highly priced, but could not be given away. Other less expensive merchandise cannot even be kept on the shelves. Most internal theft (and shoplifting) is focused on those items that are at present highly desirable. This is especially true for younger employees with minimal tenure with the firm. Opportunity then is not just access to merchandise, it is also directly dependent on how “hot” the merchandise is. In other words is the item currently in vogue? Or, as my generation said, “Is it cool?” We should not just ask ourselves whether stolen items can be fenced or sold to strangers. Of greater importance might be: Does the merchandise in our stores have subjective value to the person who takes it, either for their personal use or to give to a close friend or family member? In other words, we need to continually re-evaluate the social desirability of the merchandise in the store.
Concealability
Can the item easily be hidden on one’s person to be taken from the store? Americans are afraid to violate a person’s private social space. This is why we have so much objection to current airport security screening policies. It occurs to me that many things that are socially desirable are getting physically smaller and as a result, easier to conceal on our persons. Just think of how much easier it is to conceal a CD when compared to a vinyl record of an earlier generation, or a DVD when compared to a VHS tape in its box.
Proximity
The old saying goes, “familiarity breeds contempt.” Perhaps in the retail store the saying should be re-stated “proximity breeds devaluation.” Merchandise that is handled continuously every day can allow the employee to eventually view these items as just “things” without great value to the company. When I worked for the Air Force one summer, we often threw out equipment worth thousands, largely because everyone had forgotten its real value. POS terminals automatically price items which allows associates to lose appreciation for the real value and price of store merchandise. Eventually it just all becomes “stuff” with little or unknown value, making it much easier to steal and not worth protecting.
Neutralizing the Guilt
One of the most complicated behaviors that social scientists attempt to explain is the person who takes the property of another without feeling any guilt or remorse. I continue to be amazed by how many dishonest employees fail to appreciate the wrongfulness of what they have just been caught doing. Apparently, many people believe that stealing is perfectly acceptable, especially if you do not get caught. This belief is most commonly observed when the victim of the theft is a large, faceless bureaucracy, such as the government or a business corporation.
Paradoxically we continue to observe increases in employee dishonesty while our country’s official and self-reported larceny rates are both in decline. National Retail Security Surveys over the past 10 years indicate that that the increasing problem of employee dishonesty is not the result of a sudden breakdown in hiring practices. In fact, the NRSS has shown in each of the past 10 years that more numerous and sophisticated screening tools are being used routinely by employers. This enhanced level of applicant screening often involves multiple interviews, drug testing, criminal background checks, credit evaluations, and honesty testing. These countermeasures have successfully eliminated many risky and marginal persons from the applicant pool. Nevertheless, despite our best efforts to screen out known or potentially dishonest job candidates, employee theft not only persists but also seems to be increasing in prevalence. The question is “why?”
I believe that the reason for the continuing growth in the prevalence of dishonest employees is attributable to the fact that many conventionally socialized people have discovered a way to overcome guilt for doing something that they know is wrong. In other words, normally honest and ethical employees are stealing without feeling remorse for their behavior. This process is not based on simple rationalizations in which one excuses or justifies unethical behavior “after the fact.” No doubt many of us have engaged in these ex post facto rationalizations for our dishonesty after we have been caught doing something wrong or illegal. For example, the driver who receives a speeding ticket blames the police officer. The person who underreports their income blames the overly zealous IRS auditor. The student who cheats on a test blames the instructor for preparing an extremely difficult exam.
These examples of “after the fact” rationalizations are not causal explanations of behavior because they do not occur prior to the deviant act. To prove causation, the factors that contribute to the behavior must be present before, not after, the offending behavior.
One of the most useful theories to explain why associates who have passed the rigorous interview and screening process will eventually steal is what criminologists, Gresham Sykes and David Matza, call “techniques of neutralization.” In other words, we need to understand how conventionally socialized persons negate the guilt or remorse that one should be expected to feel for their deviant behaviors. These techniques allow for the traditional ethical bonds of society to be temporarily broken or suspended. Prior to the introduction of this theory, crime was presumed to be a product of lower-class life. Alternatively, this theory helped to explain why middle- and upper-class adolescents, after growing up in a morally and financially sound social background also engaged in delinquent behavior.
Sykes and Matza identified a number of specific types of neutralization techniques that were later expanded upon by other criminologists. I have listed the major types below, along with a definition for each in words that a retail store employee might use to express the concept.
“My store doesn’t make any sincere attempt to protect its merchandise. We have no working cameras or EAS tag alarms like other retailers do, so it’s not my fault when merchandise is missing. It’s obvious the company doesn’t care.”
“My employer sells so much merchandise that nobody will miss the few items I take. They can afford it.”
“This company makes so much profit that they have no right to claim that they are hurt by a few petty thefts. I consider pilferage my “fringe benefit package.”
4. Condemnation of the Condemner
“The store has no right to condemn me for stealing small amounts of money and merchandise. My manager shouldn’t be surprised when we take things. In fact, if there is any victim around here it is me, given the pitifully low wages that we are paid. The company should not be surprised when their hard working employees steal. The more appropriate question they should be asking is, ‘why is everybody not stealing?’”
“I really need the money to buy food and pay my rent.” Or, “If the company expects me to dress well at work then I am going to have to take money or merchandise to look presentable.”
“My friends and family are far more important to me than this company that I have been working at for just a few short weeks. So, I let friends have free or reduced price items when I ring them up at the cash register.” Or, “I need money to pay for my child’s doctor bills, since my kids and family comes before my temporary allegiance to this company.”
“We all work really hard around here, especially during the holiday season I keep track of what the company owes me in my head. If I steal, it is only fair compensation for unpaid extra hard work.”
There is substantial research support for this theory. In a paper published in 1991 (i.e., Deviant Behavior 12: 169–201), I found that many of the above-listed guilt neutralizing techniques were statistically more likely to be utilized by employees to excuse their dishonest behavior. Moreover, I discovered that techniques of neutralization were slightly more likely to be used by older, than the very youngest employees. Apparently, older associates, who better understand right from wrong, are more likely to need sophisticated guilt-neutralizing vocabularies to excuse their own crimes.
In summary, employees’ perceptions of how they are treated by management have a great deal to do with creating and perpetuating a “climate of dishonesty” in the workplace. Research shows that the most productive explanations are based on variables directly related to perceived workplace conditions or the attitudes held by workers. Managers must be more attentive to the extent to which these neutralizing techniques are present within the culture of their organizations. If neutralizing language and expressions are commonly expressed by workers, managers should not be surprised to discover that rates of employee dishonesty are above an acceptable level.
III. Deterrence
Lastly, perhaps the single most important factor influencing employees’ decisions to steal involves whether or not they believe that they will get caught. This is known in criminology as the question of deterrence. The third and final side of the theft triangle is the lack of an effective “deterrent.”
Assuming that an employee wants to steal and has the prerequisite opportunity, he or she will be affected by the two primary dimensions of deterrence. The first dimension of deterrence is the offender’s perceived certainty of detection. In other words, in their own minds, what is the chance of getting caught? The second dimension of deterrence is known as the perceived severity of punishment. In other words, if the offender does get caught, what bad things do they believe will happen to him or her as a result? Notice that I have phrased this in terms of perceived deterrence. The actual (or objective) certainty of detection and severity of punishment are not really important. All that really matters is the perceived reality on the part of the offender.
Both the perceived certainty of detection and the perceived severity of punishment work together in combination to provide the optimal deterrent effect. Put in the context of highway speeding, the perceived certainty of detection consists of “what are the odds that I might get pulled over by the police if I exceed the speed limit?” In addition, the severity of punishment amounts to “how many dollars will I be fined if given a ticket?” For deterrence to work effectively, the law violator must believe two things. First, that there is a high probability of getting caught, and second, if caught, that the punishment will be severe or costly.
Research has shown that most new employees believe (albeit inaccurately) that they will be caught if they attempt to steal from their employers. Fortunately for most businesses, the vast majority of these easily deterred employees will never attempt to steal. Most troubling, however, is that further research suggests that there is a small but significant number of employees who believe that there is little or no chance that they will ever be caught. Unfortunately, as we all secretly know, these employees are factually correct in their assessment that the risks of detection are quite low.
Moreover, even if detected, many employees correctly assume that they will not be punished very severely. In fact, the more times that they successfully steal without detection increases their assessment that they are invincible to the efforts of loss prevention. This is especially true for young males. In fact, many long-time thieves actually believe that they will never get caught and are quite surprised when they eventually do.
Given the virtually impossible task of detecting employee theft, the unspoken truth remains—most dishonest workers will never be caught. And, even if they are detected, they know that realistically the worst consequence which can happen to them is that they will be fired. Most employees who are actively engaged in theft believe that they will not be criminally prosecuted. Unless the offense is particularly costly or notable, these offenders are, more often than not, correct.
If your company is known not to aggressively prosecute employee dishonesty cases in criminal court, this situation provides very little deterrence, especially to younger employees who report the very highest levels of theft even when the chances of detection are significant. So, if the employees at the bottom of the bureaucratic hierarchy believe that they won’t be prosecuted, and know that they can get another job the very next day, how can the employer ever hope to prevent theft? The answer is that in most companies there is very little perceived certainty of detection and even lower perceived severity of punishment. It would appear that for the very experienced and confident employee thief, whatever loss prevention is doing to deter theft simply does not work very well. The obvious question is, “what can we do to change the current state of affairs?”
Here are some essential questions that each company must continually review to determine their current state of deterrence:
• What is the chance of a manager or a loss prevention investigator detecting an employee involved in theft?
• What is the chance of one’s co-workers turning in a fellow employee for theft?
• What is the chance that an employee thief will be fired if detected?
• What is the chance that an employee thief will be criminally prosecuted if detected?
• Do all employees, regardless of rank, have an equal chance of being caught and punished for theft?
• Are some employees immune from detection and prosecution given their position or rank?
• Do your employees think that the loss prevention department is a “joke”?
How did your company do in this quick assessment? If your employees are not deterred, you are not alone and have plenty of company. In my experience, most retail chains do not present much of a convincing or credible deterrent to the highly motivated offender with abundant opportunities for theft. Given this situation, perhaps we should not be asking the question, “why do my employees steal?” Instead, the more accurate question should be, “why don’t all of our employees steal, given the rather obvious fact that most could probably get away with it?” An even more scary thought is the possibility that the astronomically high levels of turnover in retail may inadvertently be working in the favor of loss prevention, given that so few employees have been working long enough to fully understand how miserably low the chances of getting caught really are!
Window Smashing
Just 50 years ago, stores big and small had windowed “store fronts,” and huge glass windows featured interesting displays of fashion goods and from time to time automated scenes, like electric toy trains winding their way through villages and over rivers and through the mountains, to everyone’s delight. Children were taken to big stores to gaze at the wonder of Christmas depicted or featured through those windows and to visit Santa Claus inside the store. The wonderful fantasies of yesteryear’s window displays have been replaced with the likes of Macy’s Christmas Parade.
With the passage of time (relatively speaking, recent times), windows became targets not only for growing criminal activity in modern society, but for acts of civil disobedience, commencing with so-called civil unrest and magnified by the Vietnam war. Large masses of marching protesters against any number of social and racial issues found smashing windows punctuated their expression of disobedience. And large windows that were smashed facilitated looting. As an indirect consequence, store windows have shrunk in size. It’s been an evolutionary process to the point today where stores which still have sizeable windows are relatively limited to secure environments, such as enclosed shopping malls, where window smashing is discouraged by the nature of the shopping center and its ever-present security force.
All that said, store windows of any size represent a vulnerability and potential access to the interior of the store, the theft and looting of all goods on display, and they must be alarmed and plans laid for temporary repairs in the event of smashing or breakage, by either man or nature.
The following simple policies and procedures should be considered:
• Do not display high price-point merchandise in window display presentations.
• Do not display alcoholic beverages in window displays.
• Number every window for emergency reference.
• Cut and store plywood panels sized by window for prompt but temporary installation (with each panel painted with the number of the window it is designed to fit).
• Arrange for whatever perimeter alarming is appropriate for that opening; e.g., if the intrusion sensing system is hard-wired, arrange for temporary lacing.
• If penetration of a window is made, especially large windows, attempt to harden the interior barrier which separates the interior of the store from that access point.
Is your store ready for the next episode of street demonstrations and the potential for window smashing?
Winning the Battle Through Pre-Employment Screening for Loss Prevention Professionals: Ten Critical Things You Need to Know
By Lester S. Rosen, Attorney at Law, Employments Screening Resources (ESR)
For Loss Prevention professionals, it is a well-established fact that internal theft accounts for a large percentage of inventory shrinking. According to industry sources, losses from employee theft can account for about 47% of total shrinkage, amounting to some $17.6 billion dollars.
Unfortunately there is no magic formula to alert loss prevention professionals in advance as to which employee is likely to steal. However, there are three general guiding principles that can substantially help loss prevention professionals manage the risks involved in employee theft.
First, there is a strong likelihood that someone who had been dishonest in the past may more likely be dishonest in the future. This proposition is borne out not only by common sense and experience, but is demonstrated by recidivism statistics showing a high rate of offenders re-offending.
Second, if a person is dishonest in the manner in which they obtained employment, such as by use of false past employment and education credentials, then it is arguably more likely that the applicant may be dishonest on the job. According to research cited in the May 1, 2006 issue of Time Magazine, there is “a lot of evidence that those who cheat on job applications also cheat in school and in life.” That was the opinion of Dr. Richard Griffith, director of the industrial and organizational psychology program at the Florida Institute of Technology, and an expert on job applicant faking. According to the article, he is concerned that if applicants fake a degree, it is likely they cannot be trusted to tell the truth when it comes to financial statements.
Third, internal theft and fraud can occur if there is the right combination of motive, opportunity, and means. Motive to steal is something that a loss prevention professional may be able to ascertain prior to the commencement of employment. For example, an employer can utilize pre-employment tools such as an employment credit report to determine if an applicant is under such extreme financial stress that there may be motivations to engage in illegal acts.
To address these concerns, Loss Prevention professionals should carefully review their current pre-employment screening practices for hiring new employees. These processes are important not only for the loss prevention staff but also for all employees with access to cash or assets. The fundamental thrust of a pre-employment screening program is to prevent employee theft by not hiring a risky employee in the first place.
Pre-employment background screening works in four critical ways:
1. Just having background screening can discourage applicants with something to hide. If an employer makes it clear that they perform background checks, then a person with a criminal record or false resume will simply apply to a company that does not pre-screen.
2. Having a screening program encourages applicants to be especially forthcoming in their interviews.
3. It limits uncertainty in the hiring process. Although using personal judgment in the hiring process can be important, basing a decision on hard information is even better. This is especially important due to recent research that suggests that human beings are often not able to detect who is lying just by observing them.
4. A screening program demonstrates that an employer has exercised due diligence, providing a great deal of legal protection in the event of a lawsuit. Every employer has a legal duty to exercise an appropriate degree of care so that they do not hire someone who is dangerous, unfit, or unqualified for the job, and it is foreseeable that harm could occur. Failure to exercise a duty of care can result in an employer being sued for negligent hiring.
It is important to keep in mind that pre-employment screening is not a guarantee that all problematic applicants will be spotted. Rather, it is intended as a cost-effective and large-scale due diligence process designed to minimize the risks of a bad hire by utilizing tools that have proven effective at weeding out bad applicants. There are four typical tools used for pre-employment screening. The first is a check of governmental records. An example can be checking public courthouse records for criminal records. Driving records are another type of record that employers may obtain from governmental agencies. Driving records are of course needed for drivers. However, anyone who does any driving for an employer during working hours, even if it’s just driving between employer locations, can create liability for an employer. The second tool is a check of private records, such as credit reports or a social security trace reports. A third tool is a factual verification of credentials by checking past employment, education, and licenses. A fourth tool is reference interviews with past employers.
In implementing or evaluating a pre-employment screening program, here are ten things that every loss prevention professional should consider when hiring employees:
1. What can happen if an employer does not screen employees
There is a near-statistical certainty that a failure to screen employees, including loss prevention team members, will result in hiring someone with an unsuitable criminal record. Screening industry studies show that up to 10% of job applicants had some sort of criminal record. Various studies have also established that one-third, or even more, resumes contain material misstatements or omissions, such as mistating the nature or length of past employment or exaggeration of educational accomplishments. The problem is that the past can be prologue and that dishonest behavior that an applicant lied about in the application process can come back to haunt an employer in the form of dishonest behavior on the job.
The same exposure can happen if employers fail to screen essential non-employees as well, such as vendors, independent contractors, and temporary workers. All these workers have access to company premises and assets. Vendors, for example, may enter an employer’s premises day or night to fix machines or bring supplies. Temporary workers may have access to client lists, cash drawers, or computer programmers. An employer should require that all vendors as well as any temporary worker should be screened, and exercise a degree of control over the process, such as the type and extent of the screening, who does the screening, and the criteria for passing the screening.
2. Do not use databases as a substitute for real background screening
Another mistake employees can make is taking shortcuts in screening by relying on databases as a substitute for real background checks. The most accurate source of information on criminal records is to obtain it directly from each courthouse. The courthouses that are searched are typically selected from a tool known as a Social Security trace report, which matches name and address to Social Security number based upon records from credit bureaus and other sources. Since there are over 8,000 courthouses in the United States, a count level search is limited geographically to just the counties searched.
Employers also have access to a number of so-called “National” multi-jurisdictional databases covering millions of criminal records and sex offenders across all 50 states. Because of their low price, large geographic coverage and instant results, loss prevention directors can be lulled into a false sense of security that using such databases shows due diligence and is a better alternative then a courthouse search.
Unfortunately, even though such databases can be a valuable part of a screening program, in reality they are only a secondary or supplemental tool and by themselves probably do not represent due diligence. Such databases are NOT taken from the national FBI criminal database, but instead are a patchwork of records available for sale or downloading from various correctional or law enforcement authorities, state court repositories or some individual count courts. As a result, there can be issues as to completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. The problem is that these database can produce both “false positives” and “false negatives.” A “false positive” is where there were insufficient identifiers so that a person is falsely accused of being a criminal or information as to a pardon or expungement was not updated. A “false negative” is where a person really is a criminal but the database missed them, either due to lack of converge, name variation, or some other issue. In the case of a possible match, the best practice is to pull the actual record from the court to verify identity and to ensure that the information is complete and up-to-date.
The bottom-line: the multi-jurisdictional databases are excellent supplemental tools in a screening program to help employers cover a broader area and suggest additional counties to search for records, but may not constitute due diligence as a stand-alone tool.
3. An employer must understand and comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state laws
Background checks are typically performed by professional third-party background firms who have the specialized knowledge, resources, and software to accomplish the task. Third-party background checks are governed by a federal law called the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Although the law refers to credit reports, that is a misnomer, because it covers any type of background checks performed by a Consumer Reporting Agency, not just credit reports. A background firm is defined under that act as a Consumer Reporting Agency, and includes not only background firms, but private investigator who performs checks.
The important points to know about the FCRA are:
Another trap for the unwary is performing background checks in-house. Although the FCRA only apples to third-party agencies, employers with an internal security department can trip the FCRA by utilizing third party resources to assist in a screening, such as hiring investigators who are out of town to check remote court records, or accessing private databases for information assembled by third parties. Unless employers do everything themselve with in-house resources, an internal investigation can end up violating the FCRA. In addition, one state, California, has enacted rules that apply FCRA-like responsibilities on private employers who obtain public records. See California Civil Code section 1786.53.
4. Understand how discrimination laws affect the use of criminal records
Employment applications typically contain language that a criminal record does not automatically disqualify an applicant. Why? Because the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has found that the automatic disqualification of applicants with a criminal record can have the effect of creating a disparated impact among certain groups, and therefore may be discriminatory. That does not mean that an employer is obligated to hire a criminal. It does mean, however, that an employer should not automatically reject an applicant without considering if there is a business justification.
It is critical for employers to understand that the background screening is conducted to determine whether a person is fit for a particular job. Society has a vested interest in ex-offenders re-entering society in order to become taxpaying and law-abiding citizens, and that typically means getting ex-offenders back into the workforce. However, an employer is also under a due diligence obligation to make efforts to determine if a person is reasonably fit for a particular position. For example, a person just out of custody for a theft crime may not be a good candidate for a loss prevention position, but may perform very well on a supervised work crew. If a criminal record is found, an employer must determine if there is a business reason not to hire the person, based upon the nature and gravity of the offense, the nature of the job, and when the crime occurred.
A possible trap for the unwary is the use of an automated decision making system. Some background firms provide security directors with a grading system based upon search results. For example, a “traffic light” may be used, and if it shows green, it means the applicant did not have a disqualifying criminal record. If a disqualifying criminal record is found, then the light will be red, which means “do not hire.” If the screening firm comes across a criminal record that has not been addressed by the employer’s work rules, then the applicant is given a yellow flag which means “caution.” The problem is that this could violate Equal Employment Opportunity law. Federal EEOC rules and many state laws prohibit the automatic elimination of a person with a criminal conviction unless the employer can show a business justification. This means each potential negative decision should be reviewed individually.
The EEOC also cautions against the use of an arrest that did not result in a conviction, since the arrest itself is essentially just the police officer’s opinion. However, if the employer is able to determine the underlying facts, then the behavior may be something an employer can potentially consider.
5. Understand the issues associated with the use of contributory Merchant Databases
Some background firms offer a product commonly referred to as a merchant database, typically used by large retailers who hire a large sales staff. They are databases in which retail stores contribute information about employees who have admitted to theft, whether or not a criminal case occurred. The database may also contain other information, such as records from various state criminal databases and Social Security Number information. These searches are relatively inexpensive, which is an advantage for employers. Since retail positions are often filled by lower-paid employees with high turnover rates, there is pressure on retailers to keep background screening as low-cost as possible.
The difficulty with using these databases is the underlying reliability of the data. The database includes information on individuals who were never prosecuted. The information is often based upon a report from a store loss prevention professional concerning an interrogation where a person admitted they committed the theft in exchange for not being prosecuted. Since the matter did not go to court, there would not be a court file, police report, or any sort of adjudication in any factual matter.
Given the nature of these databases, there are two obvious problems with their use. First, use of such a database may run contrary to the EEOC rules. An applicant may be the victim of a negative decision without any underlying factual determination. Considering the EEOC is concerned about the use of arrest records on the basis that an arrest is not a factual determination, unsubstantiated reports of a confession to store personnel are potentially troublesome.
The second issue is whether these databases are in fact FCRA compliant. Under the FCRA, a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) must take reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. If information from a merchant database is a reported confession with no judicial findings, a CRA may have difficulty justifying the negative information unless it independently contacts the person performing the interview to confirm the facts. Otherwise, a person denied a job on the basis of a merchant database could claim a lack of reasonable procedures.
The bottom line is an employer should carefully balance the potential benefits versus any risks before utilizing such a database.
6. Credit reports: uses and limitations
Employers seek credit reports on job applicants for a variety of reasons. However, employers should approach the use of credit reports with caution. There is currently no mathematical model that attempts to “score” a credit report for employment purposes.
Employment credit reports in fact do not contain “FICO” credit scores. Such a scoring would face substantial challenges to prove it is a valid and non-discriminatory predictor of job performance. As a result, the use of credit reports tend to be “judgment calls,” where the credit report is utilized in conjunction with all other available information.
Some employers take the position that a credit report shows whether an applicant is responsible and reliable by looking at the way that applicant handles his or her personal affairs. The logic is that a person who cannot pay his or her own bills on time, or make responsible personal financial decisions, may not be the best fit for a job that requires handling the company’s funds or making meaningful decisions. Employers may also request credit reports to alert them to applicants whose monthly debt payments are too high for the salary involved. The concern is if a person is under financial stress due to a monthly debt that is beyond their salary, then that can be a “red flag.” One of the common denominators in cases of embezzlement is a perpetrator in debt beyond his or her means may form a motive to steal.
However, employers should approach the use of credit reports with caution. A credit report can contain information that is incorrect or not applicable to employment. In addition, there have been changes recently that credit reports can be discriminatory if their use produces a disparate impact.
Before utilizing negative information found in a credit report, the employer should consider:
7. Use employment applications effectively to limit problematic hires in the first place
The application process is one of the most effective screening tools and it costs an employer nothing. Here are some key points.
First, make sure the application form contains all necessary language. Use the broadest possible language for felony and misdemeanor convictions and pending cases. One of the biggest mistakes employers make is to only ask about felonies on an application form, since misdemeanors can be very serious. Employers should inquire about misdemeanors to the extent allowed in their state. In addition, application forms that contain statements that lack of truthfulness or material omissions are grounds to terminate the hiring process or employment no matter when they are discovered. This is particularly important if a criminal record is found. Although a criminal record may not be used automatically to disqualify an applicant, the fact an applicant has lied about a criminal matter can be the basis for an adverse decision.
Second, it is critical to require a release for a background check in the application process. Have each job applicant sign a consent form for a background check, including a check for criminal records, past employment, and education. Announcing that your firm checks backgrounds may discourage applicants with something to hide, and encourage applicants to be truthful and honest about mistakes they have made in the past. If a firm outsources to a third-party vendor, then under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act there must be a disclosure on a separate stand-alone document.
Third, employers should review the application carefully. Often when there is an employee problem or lawsuit, a careful review of the application would have alerted the employer in advance that they were hiring a lawsuit waiting to happen. Look for the following red flags:
Fourth, in reviewing applications, look for unexplained employment gaps. It is critical to verify past employment to determine where a person has been for the last 5 to 10 years, even if you only get dates and job titles. Not everyone has a continuous job history, but generally, if you can verify that a person was gainfully employed for the last 5 to 10 years, or their whereabouts can be verified, it is less likely the person spent time in custody for a serious offense, although this does not eliminate the possibility of a lesser offense.
8. Effective interviews are also a critical part of the screening process
Another extremely effective tool that also costs nothing is the use of the interview process. It is recommended to always ask the following questions at an appropriate stage of an interview. These questions are designed to encourage applicants to be honest and forthcoming about employment-related issues. Since they have signed a consent, and believe you are doing background checks, applicants have a powerful incentive to be truthful. Good applicants will shrug it off and applicants with something to hide may reveal vital information.
These questions are particularly important for the loss prevention staff. In addition, other questions can be asked pertaining to the integrity of loss prevention employees, such as:
9. Conduct past employment checks and look for unexplained employment gaps
Verifying past employment is one of the single most important tools for an employer. It can be as important as doing criminal checks. Past job performance can also be an important predictor of future success. Some employers make a costly mistake by not checking past employment because they believe past employers may not give detailed information. However, even verification of dates of employment and job titles are critical.
First, calling past employers verifies the truth and accuracy of the employment application.
Second, contacting past employers can eliminate any unexplained gaps in employment or can uncover an attempt to hide past gaps or jobs the applicant does not want to reveal. Although there can be many reasons for a gap in employment, if an applicant cannot account for the past 7 to 10 years, that can be a red flag,
Third, documenting the fact that an effort was made to contact past employers will demonstrate due diligence.
Finally, it is also critical to know where a person has been because of the way criminal records are maintained in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a national criminal database available to most private employers. Searches must be conducted at each relevant courthouse, and there are over 8,000 courthouses in America. However, if an employer knows where an applicant has been as a result of past employment checks, it increases the accuracy of a criminal search, and decreases the possibility that an applicant has served time for a serious offense.
10. Audit your current practices to see how they would stand up in court
Finally, it is critical for employers to audit their program to determine how they would stand up in court. Employers can be sued both by victims of a bad hiring decision as well as applicants who can claim they were treated unfairly. A sample audit can be fond at: http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/Safehiringaudit.php
For additional resources on pre-employment screening, see:
Witnesses and Their Reports
For our purposes in this encyclopedic reference, there are three types of witnesses:
1. Loss prevention practitioners appearing and testifying in a criminal court proceeding or some form of administrative hearing
2. A witness to an event from whom the LP employee or LP investigator wishes to obtain a written or oral statement
3. A security or loss prevention expert witness engaged for or against a retailer for alleged tortious conduct
Let’s examine them individually.
Loss Prevention Practitioner
We’ve discussed courtroom testimony in some depth elsewhere in this book. Other venues such as state employment/unemployment or labor arbitration hearings would require the same or similar appearance and testimonial standards as in the criminal courts. The “report” or “reports,” as such, would be the work product of the loss prevention agent, i.e., investigation report or report of arrest, originally generated by that agent.
A Non-LP Witness
The non-LP category of witness more often than not does not testify, but rather is solicited (or volunteers) to share what he or she observed or heard. For example, an LP agent approaches a suspected shoplifter outside the store, and upon learning the agent’s true identity, the shoplifter bolts in an effort to escape. In that sudden motion, a customer is knocked to the ground and is injured. It would behoove the store to obtain the identity of any witness to the incident and memorialize what that witness observed. In some circumstances the witness is invited to write down his or her observations. In others, the LP agent may listen to the witness’s version and write it down for the witness to read, approve, and sign.
Sometimes the police will take witness statements and share those statements with the store for the LP department’s records. In other circumstances the LP agent may simply identify, quote, or paraphrase what the witness or witnesses have to say within the body of the report memorializing the entire event.
Witnesses may be subject to criminal court subpoena, and if so, they will be directed by an officer of the court, such as the prosecutor. Witnesses may also be subject to civil court subpoena, initially for purposes of deposition testimony, and if so, they will be directed by the attorney who initiated the service of the subpoena.
The complete identification of any witness, regardless of how his or her memorialization of observed events is recorded, is essential.
An Expert Witness
An “expert witness” is an industry-recognized “expert” claiming an expertise in a given area of specific knowledge beyond that known or understood by the general public. When testifying in a civil or criminal matter, this witness is recognized by the court as “an expert” and permitted to testify as such. The area of expertise might be in shoplifting, interrogation in the private sector, the retail industry’s “custom and practice,” the “use of force,” or other specialized or focused areas. Such experts have the unusual freedom to testify under oath as to their opinions on matters being litigated, whereas all other witnesses, referred to as “percipient witnesses,” are not allowed to opine, but rather must testify only as to what they know through their own observations (what they saw, touched, heard, smelled).
Expert witnesses normally are required to prepare, as part of their retention in lawsuits, a report reflecting their findings in their review of events and their opinions as to such issues as “Was the force used in this detention excessive and unreasonable, or was the force used reasonable and within industry standards?” Such reports must contain not only the expert’s opinion, but his or her basis for that opinion. Lawsuits are frequently settled based on such expert witness reports.
The report is the source and basis of the expert’s deposition as well as trial testimony.
Women and Minorities in Retail Security Today
The latter half of the first decade of the new millennium is an optimal time to assess the state of retail security. There are many ways to measure the progress and effectiveness of the field. This section focuses on the opportunities that female and minority workers have in today’s retail security arena.
Are there opportunities for women and minorities in retail security today? The answer is “yes.” And “no.”
There are several reasons why there is not one clear answer regarding this issue. Part of the answer has to do with word definitions. It is pretty clear what the meaning of the word “woman” is. But how exactly are “minorities” defined? And what is meant by “opportunity”?
In business, minorities are generally defined as non-White persons or persons with a disability. Ethnic minorities, such as African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans come to mind. Because of historically limited opportunities in the business world, females as well as those with disabilities are often included when encouraging “diversity” in a company.
In the new millennium, it would be rare to find a hiring manager who flatly refuses to hire someone because the person is … (fill in the blank). However, giving lip service to diversity or mouthing platitudes such as “We don’t discriminate here; everyone is welcome to apply”—even if the manager believes what he or she is saying—is not the same thing as putting out the welcome mat for workers from diverse backgrounds.
Think about it: If you lived in a world in which the people around you were a different race and/or gender, would you feel perfectly welcome everywhere? Or would you need a special kind of a welcome in order to feel as though you belonged?
The security industry is still top-heavy with White males—frequently White male former police officers. Given the fact that many of these top managers began their careers in the 1970s or 1980s, it is not surprising that their idea of “competent personnel” runs to people like themselves—other White males. They are used to working in a heavily male, Caucasian-dominated world, and they bring that mindset with them to their security careers.
We are all products of our environment and experience, so it often requires a tremendous effort on the part of these managers to make the leap to the belief that other kinds of people can be valuable workers. And it may require a Herculean effort for them to roll out the red carpet to recruit people different from themselves.
Add to these factors the reality that many of the top managers spent their police careers arresting minorities for various crimes (just take a look at the inside of any prison or jail, or a peek at the national arrest statistics, and it becomes clear that the majority of incarcerated persons are overwhelmingly members of minority ethnic groups). So it is understandable that, regardless of how much diversity training a company provides managers like these, they are going to stick with what their experience tells them is the appropriate candidate to recruit: someone like themselves.
However, the security world is changing. Many people are becoming security professionals without first having a career in law enforcement. These people, once they make their way into management, will be more accustomed to working side-by-side with women and ethnic minorities. They will know from their own experience that diversity in the workforce is valuable and will look to recruit people who are not necessarily their own mirror images.
The fact is that at the upper levels, there is a growing number of females in security management—although they are still well in the minority. There is also an increase in the number of ethnic minorities claiming their seats at the head tables, but that number is climbing even more slowly.
Opportunities for females and minorities in retail security abound at the lower levels. Quite a number of women and minorities do work in entry-level loss prevention jobs, but they are not making the trip from the ground floor to the executive suite.
As an illustration of this top-heavy representation of Caucasian men, it is interesting to note that as of 2007, ASIS International’s leadership remains overwhelmingly White-male-dominated. (The organization’s Retail Loss Prevention Council is about 12% female and 1% ethnic minority, with nary an African American or other dark-skinned person in sight.)
A lack of upward mobility for women and minority workers is attributable to several factors. Many executives fear having a frank discussion about these issues because they’re afraid of sounding prejudiced; nevertheless, certain topics do impact their hiring decisions and judgments regarding who gets promoted.
To put these issues into perspective, it is important to recognize that at the entry level, retail security workers earn only slightly more than minimum wage. Therefore, the type of person who will be drawn to such a low-paying job is often someone without prospects for a better job. That means that employees who have a limited amount of education, a lack of cultural capital, and possibly difficulties with written and spoken English will be the ones filling out the loss prevention job applications.
“Cultural capital” is a term that has come to include academic credentials or qualifications, intangibles such as behavior and attitudes, as well as “linguistic capital,” or the manner in which one speaks. People in management tend to be from the middle class or the upwardly striving (if not upwardly mobile) working class. Workers who were not raised to conform with middle-class behavior or who do not speak or write standard American English are not able to be competitive in the workplace when they are being evaluated on their levels of education, experience, and cultural capital.
Because many ethnic minorities in this country do not bring the same amount of cultural capital with them to the job, they are often passed over for promotion. Their lack of suitable communication skills or the “soft skills,” such as appropriate attitudes and workplace behaviors, may hold them back some of the time. Other times, their lack of upward mobility may be due to acknowledged or unacknowledged prejudices on the part of upper management, as is the case for many females.
In addition, when bright, talented members of ethnic minorities with excellent communication skills do enter the loss prevention field, they are often courted away by other, more lucrative industries, where it is desirable to employ a more diverse workforce. And who wouldn’t want to trade in long hours and an often thankless, never-ending task for better pay, greater prestige, and more money?
Very often, the members of ethnic minorities who do move up the ranks are first- or second-generation immigrants to the United States. Foreign-born workers, or those with parents or other close ties to the “old country,” tend to be more articulate and better educated and possess a greater amount of cultural capital. This fact is borne out by the 2007 study, “Black Immigrants and Black Natives Attending Selective Colleges and Universities in the United States,” in which researchers from Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania found that first- or second-generation immigrants comprise a disproportionately high percentage of the Black student population at U.S. universities. According to the study, Black immigrant fathers were far more likely to have graduated from college than American fathers, reflecting the fact that Africans and Afro-Caribbeans are the most educated immigrant groups, with many originally coming to the Unites States to pursue a degree.
This idea is also demonstrated on a grand scale, such as with presidential hopeful U.S. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who is lauded as the first serious African-American candidate for president. But he is actually biracial, with a Caucasian mother and a father from the African country of Kenya. Likewise, the wildly popular former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a four-star army general who also served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the son of Jamaican-born parents. These icons of Black America, like so many African Americans in positions of high power and prestige, are not from families with roots in the United States. Instead, they bring with them the manners and skills from cultures that value education and proper deportment.
Women face different challenges in the retail security workplace. The number of single mothers with children under 18 has more than tripled since 1970, going from 3 million to the present number of 10 million. And even when females have a partner, they are often the primary caregiver for their children. So women—especially those who work at lower-paying jobs—wind up taking more time off from work in order to care for their children than men do. Excessive absences, regardless of the reason, make employees less desirable candidates for jobs and promotions. For this reason—legal or not—some managers prefer not to hire women, or to hire females whom they know are free of family responsibilities.
Complicating the issue for women is the fact that they are often competing against males for security positions, which have traditionally been seen as “men’s jobs.” Security jobs are perceived to be “dirty” jobs, and, as with ethnic minorities, women with college degrees are often heavily courted by other industries that offer more attractive work atmospheres and compensation packages.
Low-paying loss prevention jobs have tremendous turnover, regardless of an employee’s gender or background. But once a worker manages to climb above the entry level and into management—or if the worker has the credentials to start his or her career in a supervisory-level job—the prospects for advancement are brighter.
The upper levels of management are still not populated by as many women as men or as many minorities as Caucasians, but females and minority members do have an opportunity to advance if they are willing to put in the time and the effort. While other, oftentimes more desirable, career paths beckon to these talented employees, once they decide to stay in loss prevention, the chances to move up do exist and promotions can be attained.
Women and minorities may, as the adage has it, have to work twice as hard to be recognized as half as good as their White male counterparts, but the opportunities are there for these workers to prove themselves to be valuable members of a loss prevention team and make it to the top.
Women in Loss Prevention
Women in the field of retail loss prevention today are afforded many rewarding opportunities. From entry-level store positions, field investigations, and management to women now operating and leading progressive and productive organizations designed to meet the challenging needs of their business, women as leaders in this industry are enthusiastically embracing this ever-changing retail segment with great success.
We have seen tremendous growth over the past 25 years in the number of women in retail loss prevention leadership positions. As we all know, diversity is critical to the success of our businesses, and having women succeed will help ensure a diverse future for our industry.
The Journey
In speaking with many of my peers, I have discovered that we have all shared personal experiences we believe have created a foundation to help women be even more successful in the future of this profession. By firsthand knowledge, I can attest to the difficulties many of us have faced over the past quarter of a century. Women as leaders in this profession were unheard of years ago. Women were viewed and classified as best suited as store detectives, floor walkers, fitting room checkers and secretaries. Men were the dominant leaders and managers, and were considered the absolute best investigators and interrogators, dominating these well-respected positions.
Today, women in loss prevention are making significant progress to move beyond these past stereotypes. Women still occupy many of the mid-management positions, but we are seeing more and more women taking on the top loss prevention positions in retail. In many companies, even today, women have to work twice as hard to prove themselves to be taken seriously to attain more responsibility in this profession. Thus, it is most important for women to understand the roadmap to ensure our success in this field. We need to focus on building our personal influence to make a powerful contribution to this profession. Women also need to understand that hesitancy or reluctance to move ahead is really the only barrier that will hold them back.
During my first job interview, I recall the over 50-year-old White male district manager, providing me with his sound career advice. He informed me that I would not be eligible for the security and safety manager training program; however, I might be able to work in a store as an entry-level store investigator tasked with detecting shoplifters. Or better yet, I should look into pursuing store merchandising. Fortunately for me, my next interview was with a store manager, previously involved in the Store Management Training Program, who saw some potential in this recent college graduate. He hired me on the spot without involving the security and safety manager of the department. It wasn’t long until I was a natural. Yes, I was hesitant in the beginning. My peers and supervisors were all male, and most were ex-police officers with years of experience. My initial training and experience was obtained by working the sales floor, assisting with internal investigations, and proving myself with good cases. I was offered some very sound advice: Work twice as hard as my male counterparts to be able to move ahead. As I look back, I know a few of the men I worked with saw me more as a “necessary statistic,” rather than a peer. I was working for Montgomery Ward, and hiring women was required on everyone’s performance appraisals. After I obtained some proven experience and gained my confidence, I was on the road to a great and rewarding career.
Yes, there were obstacles when I started out. A few of the men in similar positions became envious and made accusations about how I worked my way up. This seemed to be the best response a peer could invent as I was promoted, due to my proven performance. However, being a bit naïve and, fortunately, obstinate enough to never consider my gender as a problem, I persevered. A close male coworker also provided me with a piece of sound advice; it was simply to ignore the demeaning comments and jealousy by maintaining my focus on doing the best I could. Another very important lesson I learned was to be true to myself. Your performance and integrity will earn all the respect you will ever need. In time, my male peers began to see me for my contribution to the organization.
Let’s face it, women have challenges our male counterparts have never had to confront. At the 2006 National Retail Federation Loss Prevention Conference, there was a roundtable discussion for women in loss prevention. An attractive young female bravely brought up a problem a few of us sitting around the table had faced many years before. She asked the group, “How do you get the male police officers to take you seriously, or to stop flirting and asking you out for a date?” We reflected back to the not-so-distant past, looked at each other, laughed, and all offered up advice we had used in our careers when faced with similar circumstances. It seems like a few of the challenges 25 years ago still hold true today. With this in mind, women in loss prevention need to support one another. We all know as we become more experienced in dealing with situations like this, we become stronger, more assertive, and firm in our aspirations to excel and succeed. A strong mentoring program, partnering with other women to help them succeed, will help build the foundation to ensure the success of women in this profession. In my case, I find it very rewarding to be able to give back to the community of women who pursue a loss prevention career. I also know the importance of our long-term contribution to our businesses. Diversity is an important component that will ensure our businesses succeed for many years to come.
Survey Regarding Women in Loss Prevention
Cheryl Blake has been involved with the retail loss prevention industry for more than 25 years, holding positions ranging from store detective to director for companies such as Kids R Us, Funcoland, and GameStop. As Vice President of Loss Prevention Services for the exception-based reporting company, Aspect Loss Prevention, she was involved in conducting a survey in 2006, regarding the differing perceptions and experiences of male and female loss prevention professionals. While the survey was unscientific, Cheryl stated,”… the responses were extremely telling and should serve as a guide to companies that are looking to increase the diversity of their Loss Prevention departments. Women and men are both well suited to this industry, but it is obvious that there are significant differences, actual and perceptional, that must be acknowledged if change is to be accelerated.”
Of the more than 200 survey respondents, 22% were women. Of the 58 senior loss prevention executives (director or above), 13% were women. Interestingly, 75% of the female senior leaders had more than 20 years of experience while this was true for less than 15% of the men. This may imply that women must prove themselves for a longer period of time before attaining a senior-level position. It is also plausible that some very qualified females choose to leave the industry due to their lesser chances of reaching the top position. The majority of men entered this field from government service, law enforcement, or as an entry-level store detective, while only four women had a law enforcement background, and none had started as a store detective. More than twice as many men came from the operations side of retail than women, suggesting that loss prevention is not seen as a career path for women in retail. Clearly, there are differences between the sexes in recruiting paths and retention strategies.
There were notable differences in how men and women perceived gender characteristics as an advantage or disadvantage. Over 60% of the women said that a woman’s empathy, strong communication skills, nurturing nature, and approachability were major advantages in several aspects of the job. Cheryl stated, “As a woman, I believe I am a much better interviewer since I can naturally relate to the subject on more levels than a man.” Conversely, only 25% of the men named these attributes as an advantage. Similarly, many women named business skills, analytical ability, and the ability to multitask as advantages for women. Less than 10% of the men reported the same. Almost one-half of the men said that women had no unique advantage in the field, but less than one-quarter of the women made a similar statement.
Both men and women stated the most significant disadvantage to women in this field was the fact that loss prevention is a “Man’s World,” with the existence of the proverbial “glass ceiling.” Just under 25% of the men acknowledged this disadvantage compared to almost 50% of the women. The more limited opportunity to network with other industry leaders and vendors was mentioned numerous times by women. More women than men cited a negative perception of strong women, or women in business. Many commented that while a forceful male was considered a strong leader, the same characteristics in a woman gave her a negative reputation. Significantly more men stated that family responsibilities were a disadvantage to women. One male commented, “Men are believed to be more willing to move their families for a new opportunity than are women.” A surprising 50% of the men saw no disadvantages to women compared to only 10% of the women who felt that way.
The results were reversed when examining the advantages that men had in the field. Here, only a quarter of the men stated that men benefited because loss prevention is a maledominated environment, but almost 50% of the women saw this as true The same statistics were seen regarding the statement that there is an inherent respect for men in business and loss prevention. Forty-six percent of all responding men stated that men had no advantage, while only 12% of the women believed this to be true.
The survey asked men to state the biggest disadvantage they faced in this career field. The results revealed there was no disadvantage for men. Men stated this significantly more than women, 59% to 35%. Women were more likely to report that men were at a disadvantage due to their weaker interpersonal skills and lack of empathy, 30% to 15%. It was also very interesting to note that over 15% of the respondents from both sexes identified reverse discrimination as a disadvantage to men.
Finally, the survey asked contributors to identify the things that made them successful. Men were much more likely to comment on their personal drive to succeed, hard work, passion, and work ethic. Women most often mentioned flexibility and willingness to learn. However, the biggest difference between the sexes was the number of times that “having a great mentor” was mentioned. Women remarked on this three times as often as men. This leads to the possible conclusion that, in this male-dominated industry, having a mentor is one way for women to overcome the perceived disadvantages.
The Road to Success
The road to success for women does has its road blocks, speed bumps, and a few deep chuck holes, but there are no mountains in the road we can’t drive around. Some of the obstacles can be heart breakers, while we glide over other hurdles with ease. These obstacles must be faced straight on with a plan to forge ahead. The women who have succeeded have possessed the tenacity to push ahead with a willingness to accept change, or be an agent of change, to increase their personal influence to attain their goals. Utilizing your resources, partnering with others, and finding a mentor or coach to provide the encouragement, counsel, and support to persevere are key in this pursuit of your goals. It has been proven time and time again that support and guidance are critical to accomplish your professional goals. We need to exemplify decisiveness and be determined to attain our goals. We all need to understand that it is all right for us to be focused on ourselves. Women tend to be less egotistical than men, yet we need to demonstrate the self-confidence men exude with the determination and persistence to persevere. The woman who is aware of the hurdles in this business has a much better chance of overcoming them with fewer bumps and bruises along the way.
We see successful women in loss prevention excel due to their ability to effectively communicate, along with their desire to exceed the expectations of their responsibilities. This results in the development of beneficial business relationships. A compassionate management and communication style which demonstrates the genuine desire to be a business partner is advantageous to our success. Building relationships outside your own department in other areas of your company, and even outside with other retailers, merchant associations, vendors and educators, is helpful to succeed in this profession.
The essential elements for success include
• Develop a written plan with action steps for everything you want to achieve.
• Find a mentor to help you along the way. Every successful woman in loss prevention can name at least one mentor who helped her attain success. A mentor is the most effective resource you can have to ensure you meet your objectives. Mentors provide an independent source of objective feedback, support, and aren’t judging you or your performance. Mentors will share their life experiences with you to help you learn from their challenges, successes, and the wisdom they gained along the way.
• Be true to your personal values and principles.
• Understand your personal priorities; balance work and home.
• Utilize your self-motivating principles to maintain the focus on your goals.
• Be well organized and utilize every available resource.
• Be responsible for your own education and development.
• Develop a keen awareness of your work environment. Truly understand the “big picture” of your business and be future oriented.
• Gain expertise in your field.
• Know and support your company’s goals.
• Know the business operations inside and out.
• Volunteer in areas outside loss prevention to gain exposure to others within the organization.
• Engage men and the masculine dynamics that operate in loss prevention, but don’t forfeit your feminine skills and innate nature as a woman. The industry needs it, and it keeps you sustainably engaged in this field.
• Build and nurture relationships. Build a strong support system inside and outside work; then use it. It can get lonely out there if there aren’t many like you around.
• Network! Be involved in professional organizations and women’s groups focused on career growth; volunteer in your community.
• Maximize your innate sense to communicate with clarity.
• Develop your skills to effectively handle difficult conversations and managing conflict. This can be what makes or breaks your personal success in loss prevention.
• Leaders (male or female) need to model both masculine (action, directness, problem solving) and feminine (intuition, synthesis, collaboration) traits.
• Maintain high expectations for yourself and your team.
• Deliver with excellence. Your work product represents you.
• Make well-informed decisions and provide sound recommendations based on what is best for the company overall.
• Be prepared and have your facts straight.
• Demonstrate your conviction with the bravery to take risks.
• Exude confidence in all interactions and presentations.
• Understand the differences of power and influence. Be willing to use either at the appropriate time.
• Don’t take yourself too seriously; humor is still the universal equalizer and sanity saver.
And, if you believe there are no impossible barriers, the opportunities are boundless!
The Women in Loss Prevention Caucus
In 2004, the National Retail Federation (NRF) sponsored the first platform for all women in the field of retail loss prevention. The NRF understood the need to support women in this profession and knew the value this forum could provide to retailers. Company membership with the National Retail Federation organization is not required for a female in loss prevention to participate.
The mission statement of the Caucus reads,
The Women in Loss Prevention Caucus is a forum that encourages women to network and learn from each other. Our purpose is to provide opportunity for empowerment through shared learning and mentoring, to support women in reaching their career goals.
The Women in Loss Prevention Caucus was created and initially chaired by Laurie Sorenson, Vice President of Loss Prevention for Bon-Macy’s. The first annual breakfast at the NRF Loss Prevention conference in June 2004 had more than 100 participants. The Caucus membership has flourished over the past few years to more than 350 members.
Rosa Maria Sostillio, the Senior Vice President of Asset Protection for Saks Fifth Avenue, launched the Women in Loss Prevention Caucus Mentoring Program. This mentoring program was immediately embraced. Women with great depths of experience are eagerly willing to extend their life experiences and field expertise to the protégés. In turn, the protégés are eager to learn from their mentors’ infinite wisdom and know the extreme importance mentors offer to their long-term growth and success. Any women wishing to secure support in their career should reach out to this mentoring program. This invaluable resource available to women in loss prevention is an outstanding opportunity to ensure a successful career path in our profession.
Quarterly conference calls are held to provide a networking opportunity and a formalized professional development presentation by experts on the topic of interest. These topics are determined by the Caucus members via an annual survey. A few of the professional development topics presented by recognized business experts have included “The Power of Women,” “Helping Women Find a Voice and Place in Corporate America,” “Building and Maintaining Your Personal Brand,” and “Goal Setting and Tools for Success.”
This networking resource is invaluable to women in loss prevention. The women participating in this Caucus are pleased to assist one another. There is a genuine understanding and willingness to give back to the community of women, and this is the most rewarding gift to all our peers.
I have had the honor to represent the Women in Loss Prevention Caucus for the past year. I am truly amazed at the growth and expansion of the Caucus, the willingness to actively participate, and most of all the selfless commitment my peers have shown not only to me, but to women just entering this profession. There are so many opportunities in loss prevention and retail. This is a rewarding profession that has afforded me, and many others, great career success personally, and for our employers. We all have so many wonderful stories and life experiences to share. Now, with the Women in Loss Prevention Caucus we have a forum to pass along our wit and wisdom.
Successful Women Leaders in Loss Prevention
Today we see the retail industry promoting gender diversity resulting in women filling higher level positions in all areas of the organization. There are several companies where women competently hold the top loss prevention roles. These women fill positions of director and vice president roles within their organizations. Many of these women have worked their way up the corporate ladder through their strong convictions and steadfast commitment to the loss prevention profession.
Loss prevention leaders today also have the opportunity to transition into other business disciplines such as store management, operations, human resources, finance, risk management, legal, or to create their own special niche.
Helpful Resources
Becoming a Woman of Influence: Making a Lasting Impact on Others by Carol Kent
The Woman’s Workplace Survival Guide by Sarah Kiap
Talking 9 to 5 by Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. She also has other articles of interest regarding gender communication.
Fierce Conversations Achieving Success at Work & in Life, One Conversation at a Time by Susan Scott.
Websites:
www.weatherhead.case.edu/seminars/certificate_women.cfm offers courses such as “Communication in the Workplace: Closing the Gender Gap” and “Women & Organizational Politics: Developing Power and Influence.”
www.wmwgroup.com Personal & Professional Development Specialists
www.networkofexecutivewomen.com
A very helpful resource for diversity, loss prevention and the retail industry: Mimi Welch, Transition Dynamics, www.TransitionDynamics.NET
Working to Stop Robbery—A Grocery Store Perspective
Robberies can occur in any of the following locations within a grocery store:
• At the register in a checkout lane
• Bank located within a grocery store
The target of the robberies may also include media other than cash, e.g., lottery tickets at the customer service desk. Hence the need to ensure that all processes look at the negotiability of what is being handled or processed at each point of customer contact.
The occurrence of a robbery, however, can be minimized by following sound cash-handling procedures, providing good physical security (alarms, cameras, restricted access), and providing training to all employees.
Minimize exposure by keeping cash-on-hand as low as possible in all registers.
Supervision of express lane (not staffed by a full-time cashier)
• Account for all non-cash, but negotiable items, e.g., lottery tickets, postage stamps, money order stock
• Restrict access to only those who work in the office
• Maintain a photo list of armored car couriers, and allow no other armored car couriers into the office unless they are on the list
• Have a peep hole or CCTV capability to see who is on the other side of the door prior to opening the door
• Open and close the office with two individuals
• Maintain a written log of all who come in to the office (sign in and out)
• Provide a secure area for counting down of drawers, if done by cashiers, that is out of the public, but NOT in the cash office itself
Store should have a burglary alarm system that is capable of separate partitions. The goal is to alarm areas when not in use, e.g., loading dock alarmed when receiving done; fire exits always alarmed.
Cash Office should be a separate partition on the burglary alarm system, so that it can be set when closed, even though the store may still be open, or there is an overnight crew working in the building.
Bank and ATM alarms should NOT be on the store’s burglary system, they should have their own alarm system provided by the bank and/or provider of the ATM.
Cash Office should be for cash handling only. It should not be the front end supervisor’s office.
CCTV system should cover the inside of the cash office, key overnight registers if a 24-hour location, and entry and exit points from the building. It is critical to get a good facial picture of the person(s) in the facility.
Customer Service Desk should have restricted access, be covered by CCTV system, and be in a line of sight to rest of the check out area.
Robbery training should be formatted and/or presented to address before, during, and after segments of dealing with a robbery.
• Before—how to prevent a robbery from occurring
• During—what do I do when the person is in front of me?
• After—how to deal with notifying law enforcement, management, media, and helping the involved employees deal with the stress of a robbery.
Robberies of In-Store Banks, ATMs, and Armored Car Couriers or Vehicles
Talk to the bank’s security manager to understand what they have in place for security and robbery procedures.
Will they have their own security guard? Armed, unarmed? What is that person’s role? What will they expect the store to do in the event of a robbery at the bank?
• Provide video if store’s video covers the exits?
• Close the store if the FBI or police department wants restricted access until they have talked to all witnesses? If so, what does that do to your customers, sales, etc.?
• Provide a quiet location (conference room, office) for the victims or witnesses?
ATMs—make sure that with any ATM placed in your store there is a clear understanding of the following issues:
• Service is to be provided by the ATM Company, NOT the store
• Funds in the ATM do not belong to the store
• There is no expectation that you will store extra cash canisters for the ATM
• Customer disputes are to be resolved by the ATM Company, not the store
• In the event of a robbery of the ATM service team or a customer who has just used the ATM, make sure your role is clear, i.e., call police, assist if any medical issues, and notify the ATM owner.
Armored Car Courier or Vehicle Robbery
• Ensure that the armored vehicle can park as close as possible to the entrance to the store so the distance they have to carry the cash is as short as possible.
• Ensure that there is proper company/courier identification and signing for the pick-up, so that ownership of the deposit is always clear.
• Ensure that the courier signs in and out of the cash office (name, date, and time).
• In the event of a robbery, notify police, assist if medical issues, and notify the armored vehicle company.
Note: If the in-store bank is the depository bank for your store, consider making daily check deposits at the in-store bank so you can reduce the number of armored vehicle pickups per week. There are also automated cash systems being put into grocery stores now that greatly reduce cash exposure. The two systems that are in use at some of our retail divisions are AT Systems and Brinks.
World’s Largest Retail Trade Association: The National Retail Federation’s Role in Retail Loss Prevention
The National Retail Federation (NRF) is one of the world’s largest retail trade associations. Membership comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution, including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, drug stores and grocery stores, as well as the industry’s key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 24 million employees—about one in five American workers—and 2006 sales of $4.7 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national, and international retail associations.
In the U.S., retailing is more than just a business—it is a way of life that influences so much of what we do. If you ever doubted the power of retailing, just reflect on the immense impact our industry has on the economy:
• Watch the economists who hunger for the monthly Commerce Department report on retail sales
• Listen to the market analysts or the industry gurus whose very future may hang on their prediction of holiday sales, or
• Pay attention to how our industry’s performance can alter the direction of the stock market.
Retailers turn to NRF to give them a voice, whether it’s in the media or on Capitol Hill. That voice can take several forms: from serving as retail’s advocate before Congress, to representing the industry’s point of view with the media, coordinating interaction between and among retailers from around the world, and providing research or information that helps the industry move forward.
Through the years, NRF has played all these roles and more. In 2006, the Federation gathered its members in Washington, DC, to express their concerns in face-to-face meetings with some of the nation’s most influential lawmakers. Additionally, NRF was an aggressive advocate on the most difficult issues retailers face: bringing the issue of credit card interchange fees to the attention of Congress, fighting restrictions on international trade, testifying before Congress against hackers/botnet creators, and working to hold down soaring health care costs.
NRF’s four divisions have continued to break new ground across the retail landscape.
• The National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR) led the business community on the difficult issue of immigration reform.
• The Retail Advertising and Marketing Association (RAMA) continued to inspire retailing’s most creative minds through its annual Retail Advertising Conference, and honored retail advertising geniuses through the creation of its RACie Award.
• The Association for Retail Technology Standards (ARTS) continued to bring standards education to its members both at home and across the globe.
• Shop.org, NRF’s multi-channel division, experienced soaring success with its Cyber Monday promotion and creation of the Ray M. Greenly Scholarship Fund, which provides financial support to students pursuing careers in the e-commerce industry. In its first month, Shop.org’s Cyber Monday website raised an astonishing $100,000 for the scholarship fund, and the number just keeps growing.
The retail discipline topics that NRF services include: Diversity, Finance, Government Relations/Public Policy, Human Resources, Independent Retailers, Information Technology, Loss Prevention, Marketing, Merchandising, Online and Multichannel Retail, Store Operation, Supply Chain, and more. Lobbying support, committee activity, media coverage, networking opportunities, webinars, conference calls, grassroots efforts, conference/events and C-level summits are the components that NRF offers retailers.
The NRF Loss Prevention community has burgeoned over the last five years. The community is composed of 15 committees and the Investigator’s Network.
Conference/Event Planning Committees
Food Industry Loss Prevention Committee
Gift Card Working Group, LP Subcommittee
Homeland Security Information Network
Joint Organized Retail Crime Task Force (JORCTF)
Loss Prevention Awards and Recognition Committee
Loss Prevention Legislative Committee
Loss Prevention—NCCR Food Safety Task Force
Astounding Steps with the Committee Structure
The NRF LP Advisory Council is composed of senior loss prevention executives from diverse retail sectors, and provides direction on conference content and develops subcommittees to better serve the industry. In response to the burgeoning LP community (and the formalization of the profession), the Advisory Council created new committees in 2006: Brand Protection Committee, Education Committee, Food Industry Loss Prevention Committee, and they restructured the Awards and Recognition Committee.
The Brand Protection Committee will initially work on benchmarking and case studies for retailers to share information on how they have approached counterfeiters and fraudsters. The Conference/Event Planning Committee oversees the content of the annual LP Conference, which is growing year-over-year. The newly formed Education Committee was assembled to work with universities and certification programs to assist current LP professionals on continuing education for professional development, and to attract college students to the industry by creating university courses and baccalaureate programs in Loss Prevention. The Food Industry Loss Prevention Committee focuses on loss prevention and security issues that are unique to food retailers.
The Loss Prevention Awards and Recognition Committee was recently restructured, as three new awards were created to honor loss prevention, law enforcement, and security professionals. The longstanding Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Award will continue to honor law enforcement professionals/agencies who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and the National Retail Federation will now honor the industry with three additional awards. The awards present at the Annual NRF Loss Prevention Conference will now include:
• Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Award
To acknowledge law enforcement professionals or agencies who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to support the retail industry in combatitng fraud and other types of losses.
• Loss Prevention Case of the Year
This award is the premier recognition program for Loss Prevention professionals. The award will recognize an LP Investigator whose investigation has made a positive impact on his company, community, and industry.
This recognizes Loss Prevention professionals making significant and measurable contributions to charitable organizations. These contributions include fundraising, outreach, volunteering, and activities that have made a positive impact in their community.
The Ring of Excellence Award is a recognition program for loss prevention professionals whose achievements and outstanding leadership have shaped the industry. The award will recognize pioneers in the loss prevention community whose honor, integrity, and character serve as an example for the LP industry. Inductees to the Ring of Excellence can be honored in person or posthumously.
The LP Subcommittee of the Gift Card Working Group is a very active group, especially during the holiday season. This subcommittee is composed of retail loss prevention and gift card fraud specialists. The group was established to address fraud and other vulnerabilities identified in the gift card life cycle. In 2006, the NRF Gift Card Survey, conducted by BIGresearch, found that gift card sales would total $24.81 billion during the holiday season, an impressive $6 billion increase over 2005, when gift card sales hit $18.48 billion. The average consumer spent $116.51 vs. $88.03 on gift cards in 2005. Congruently, gift card fraud has also risen. According to the National Retail Security Survey conducted by the University of Florida, gift card fraud amounts to $72,000 per company. Thus, the activity of this committee continues to increase.
Over the past year, the NRF Investigator’s Network has seen astounding growth with nearly 700 loss prevention professionals nationwide participating. The Network was formed to provide retail loss prevention executives, shopping center security, and law enforcement officials a forum to network and discuss critical issues at a local, regional, and national level. Currently there are five regions that meet: Northeast Region (NY, NJ, CT, PA), Central Region (Midwestern states), Atlantic Region (DC, VA, MD), Southwest Region (TX, NM, LA, OK, AR), and Western Region (CA, NV, OR, WA, AZ).
NRF launched the Women’s Resource Center website, www.nrf.com/wrc, in cooperation with the NRF Women’s Retail Council and the NRF Women in LP Caucus (WLPC). The interactive website allows visitors to access conference call recaps and other resources generated by NRF’s Women’s Retail Council and the WLPC. The WLPC experienced phenomenal growth. Launched in 2004, the committee grew from 25 members, representing 21 different retailers, to over 340 members two years later. The mission of the Caucus is to provide a forum that encourages women to network and learn from each other. Their purpose is to provide opportunity for empowerment through shared learning and mentoring, to support women in reaching their career goals.
Continuing to support diversity in the industry, NRF launched the Latin Loss Prevention Caucus, which, similar to the Women in LP Caucus serves as an avenue for professional development. The Latin LP Caucus meets annually at the NRF Loss Prevention Conference each June and was developed to build relationships and enhance the resources for participating members, and to provide a forum to improve communication within the Latin LP community and the NRF.
The NRF LP Community also consists of the Mall and Retail Loss Prevention Partnership Committee. This committee is composed of members of the LP Advisory Council and International Council of Shopping Center Security Advisory Council. The group meets annually to determine strategies for retailers and mall developers to collectively address issues such as terrorism, organized retail crime, and physical security.
Orc Database Is Nationally Recognized
In response to the growing threat of organized crime against retailers, NRF developed a leading, secure, web-based computer database that allows retailers to share information with each other and with law enforcement. The Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Network (LERPnet) was created by the NRF in partnership with other industry associations and endorsed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. LERPnet has been nationally recognized as the standard for sharing information in a secure and confidential manner, giving retailers and law enforcement the ability to collaborate like never before.
NRF also created the Joint Organized Retail Crime Task Force (JORCTF) with a primary focus of investigating and intelligence-sharing as it relates to organized retail crime activity, and fencing of illegal and counterfeit goods. This invitation-only group shares investigative methods and tactics, as well as develops and maintains law enforcement relationships across the nation.
NRF Continues to Work with the Public Sector to Combat Crime
Continuing to work in cooperation with the public sector to battle crimes that affect retailers, NRF serves on several key councils and committees, including the Food & Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council, Commercial Facilities Coordinating Council and Homeland Security Intelligence Network Governance Board with the Department of Homeland Security, and works with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on a regular basis. The 2007 NRF’s vice president of loss prevention, Joseph LaRocca, testified before the United States Congress in favor of a bill that would give the Justice Department new criminal tools with which to prosecute hackers and botnet creators. He also submitted testimony to the Vermont State Senate on the topics of organized retail crime, counterfeit receipts, and theft detection technology. In 2006, NRF’s efforts were recognized by FBI Director Robert Mueller for playing a supporting role in a major organized retail crime case.
Select retailers are invited to participate on the NRF Legislative Committee, which was developed to set the legislative agenda of the industry, educate the loss prevention community and company executives on the legislative process, and to educate the legislative bodies and their members about loss prevention issues. Through efforts such as those above, the committee has heightened the awareness of impacting legislation at the local, state, and federal levels and continues to forge new ground on combating crime.
Through the NRF’s LPInformation.com web portal, loss prevention executives can sign up for access to the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). Through partnership with governmental boards and task forces, NRF serves as a liaison between the public and private sector and helps to get retailers attending business continuity/crisis management meetings that would affect their business in the event of a catastrophic event.
2006 Loss Prevention Conference Sees Outstanding Growth
NRF’s 2006 Loss Prevention Conference and Exhibition shed new light on leading industry trends, when more than 2,600 loss prevention executives gathered in Minneapolis to explore new ideas, research, and strategies. Growing along with the conference, this year’s EXPO Hall increased from 32,800 square feet in 2005 to more than 39,000 square feet in 2006.
The three-day event included more than forty educational sessions and forums, featuring loss prevention experts from Limited Brands, Gap, Inc., Best Buy Co., and the U.S. Department of State, exploring topics such as curbing shrink, enhancing global security programs, business continuity and recovery, and combating organized retail crime.
2006 keynote highlighted speakers included:
— Mike McCurry, veteran communications strategist and former press secretary to President Bill Clinton
— Harold Lloyd, a business person, owner of family-style restaurants and author, who identified qualities of effective leaders.
Also during the conference, the NRF Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Award was presented to Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Chris Frazier of the Portland, Oregon Field Division, who assisted Safeway, Inc. in shutting down a complex organized retail crime ring.
In the fall of 2006, NRF held the second annual Loss Prevention Senior Executives Summit in Dallas, Texas. Led by Dan Doyle, vice president of loss prevention, human resources and administration for Beall’s, and chairman of the NRF LP Advisory Council, a diverse group of 90 professionals came together and clearly articulated the current vulnerabilities and opportunities in the areas of organized retail crime, personnel development, homeland security, and loss prevention equipment. A white paper unveiling these findings was presented at the NRF Loss Prevention Conference in June 2007.
Bio
In 2007 Angélica Rodríguez was named as the National Retail Federation’s Director, Loss Prevention. Prior to this position, Rodríguez worked in the NRF membership department as a Manager, Member Relations.
Rodríguez will join Vice President of Loss Prevention Joseph LaRocca in serving as a liaison for loss prevention committees, members and governing boards. She will also act as an NRF spokesperson on loss prevention topics.
Previously, Rodríguez worked with an international destination management company based in Washington, DC where she was their Manager of Marketing and Communications. Before she arrived in DC, Rodríguez worked for a security design and installation company in Austin, Texas as their Manager of Business Development and Communications.
Rodríguez holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Rice University in Political Science with a focus on International Relations.
The National Retail Federation is the world’s largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution, including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, drug stores, and grocery stores as well as the industry’s key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 24 million employees—about one in five American workers—and 2006 sales of $4.7 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national, and international retail associations.
Workplace Violence: Zero Tolerance is Not Enough
Some wise person once said, “Success in life is not as dependent on the talent that you possess as much as it is based on the quality of the decisions that you make.” I believe this to be absolutely true in the business world as well and with regards to workplace violence. Every company’s management is faced with making decisions and choices that may very well impact the future profitability, lives of employees, and perhaps even the fate of the firm.
Boiled down to the simplest denominator, there are only three choices that a firm has to deal with concerning the risk of workplace violence occurring:
• To ignore the risk (in other words, you can throw the dice and believe that it won’t happen in your organization).
This approach is the most frequent one taken to deal with the risk of workplace violence. This belief, better known as the “ostrich approach,” is the number-one obstacle to managers taking a proactive, preventative approach to dealing with workplace violence. Generally, this approach is characterized by either a formal or intuitive assessment of the statistical risk of violence occurring in the workplace, and because the odds are very small of being victimized, not much is put into addressing the issue.
• To transfer a portion of the risk via insurance.
This approach is one in which the organization does what it is legally required to do to address issues to minimize any legal liability and purchases Employment Practices Liability Insurance. This approach fundamentally trades the cost of taking preventative efforts for getting payment in the event that an incident does occur. Management can rest easier knowing that the financial impact of a violent incident on the continuity of business has been mitigated. Unfortunately, this approach does not mitigate the actual impact on people who are actually injured or whose lives are lost or damaged forever.
• To eliminate a substantial amount of the risk by reducing “at risk” behaviors (individual and organizational behaviors that tend to increase risk of workplace).
This approach is the one taken by progressive organizations that actually operationalize their mission statement that people are their most important resource and genuinely focus on providing a safe workplace free of known hazards. These organizations focus on implementing a comprehensive strategy designed to prevent injuries before they occur and recognize the importance of assessing both individual and organization risk factors. Some organizations get defocused and put the sole focus on individual behaviors.(1)
This third approach—focusing on reducing risk—is the focus of this section. In particular, retail businesses need to simultaneously address reducing risks that come from within the workplace, as well as the more formidable risks that come from outside. It should be noted that while we will reference some “internal” strategies, the intent of this section is primarily to address external risk. For an extensive coverage of how to deal with internal threats, go the website of the National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., located at www.workplaceviolence911.com/.
An effective approach for dealing with “at risk” behaviors is to classify them and then develop appropriate actions that need to be taken at each of the commensurate levels of risk. One model, which borrows from the threat levels used for Homeland Security, can be used to guide your actions (see Figure W-1).(2)
It should be noted that, to successfully implement the actions necessary at each level, an infrastructure for dealing with workplace violence must already exist. Typically, this would include
• A Workplace Violence Prevention or Threat Management Committee
• A workplace violence prevention policy
• Integrated and synchronized human resources, security, safety, and risk management policies
Each of the preceding infrastructure items will be covered in more depth later in this section.
Actions that can be taken based on identified level of risk are described next.
Low
• Identify the risks of violence that your specific organization, industry, or geographic location may be exposed to and develop a plan to mitigate any potential exposure. For example, if you operate a warehouse in an area where several robberies or rapes have occurred in other company parking lots, you should increase your lighting, provide security escorts for employees, etc., in your parking lot.
• Train your supervisors and employees on your workplace violence prevention policy, how to recognize the “early warning signs,” as well as how to avoid being a victim of robbery and how to survive a robbery.
• Conduct a facility risk assessment to ascertain vulnerabilities and take actions to address identified problems and improve perimeter security.
• Establish a protocol with local law enforcement to expedite response to an incident. This includes familiarizing police personnel with your facility and its physical layout.
Guarded
• Conduct a desktop review or rehearsal of your workplace violence crisis response plan to test how the components work and learn where improvements are necessary (remember plans rarely work exactly as they are supposed to).
• Conduct an organizational assessment in the departments, stores, etc., that have a heightened pattern of risky behaviors, events, etc., and work with management to develop a positive employee relations plan to address the problems identified.
Elevated
• Review factors common to organizations that have a higher propensity for incidents of workplace violence and identify the departments stores, etc., that have multiple factors.
• Conduct an individual threat assessment of persons who are identified as being “at risk.” This may include having security conduct a background check, having a Workplace Violence Prevention professional conduct a threat assessment, or conducting a “fitness for duty” evaluation and taking specific actions based on the information learned.
• Using the input of your labor attorney, law enforcement, security management, and workplace violence prevention professional, determine appropriateness of obtaining a “workplace restraining order.” Note that this should not be an automatic decision and should be well thought out because in many cases a restraining order can exacerbate or contribute to the situation escalating.
High
• Involve law enforcement to take preventative actions.
• Enlist private security professionals to conduct surveillance of “at risk” employees and monitor their movements.
• If specific individuals have been identified as being potential targets, relocate their work location and/or provide security protection.
Severe
• Cooperate with and follow the directions of law enforcement, who should be handing the situation at this point.
It should be noted that the “low risk” level is the point where you should put the most prevention efforts. You should focus on “doing the right things” upfront that will reduce the likelihood of situations escalating to higher risk level.
Note that the specific steps presented in the preceding action orientation example are intended to illustrate the stepping stone nature of actions that can be implemented. In reality these steps must be developed specifically to meet the unique requirements of a specific organization based on their culture, stage of business maturity, etc. It would be unwise to plug in the risk levels as stated into an organization without customizing them to fit the organization’s needs.
Before we switch the dialogue to a discussion of the infrastructure that is necessary to reduce violence in the workplace, it is important to address the transition of philosophies occurring about violence. “Zero tolerance” (a policy stating that certain behaviors are not acceptable and any deviations or violations of the policy will not be tolerated) is the philosophy that dominated the thinking in how to address violence in the workplace from the late 1980s through the late 1990s. It is my strong belief that zero tolerance is a modern day example of the adage, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”(1)
To some extent, zero tolerance policies in the workplace describe the American backlash to violence, unwanted behavior, and actions in schools and professional sports leagues. In the early 1990s, politicians began to hear the public outrage and discontent with violence, crime, drugs, and other antisocial problems. Fueled by media hype, in the aftermath of a number of high-profile, extremely violent incidents at public schools, fear of the unthinkable, and perhaps even a bit of guilt, more parents started demanding that school boards implement strict policies to deal with kids who step out of line. As a result, zero tolerance had its beginnings from the larger societal discontent and subsequent Congressional response to students with guns. It was proclaimed as a policy to provide safe school environments and took on the mantra of a harsh, mandatory, “take-no-prisoners,” overzealous approach to discipline that has been increasingly used in this country’s criminal justice system.(3) Thus, we have seen the implementation of a draconian one-size-fits-all approach to deal with school disciplinary issues sweep the American landscape.
Having been born of this well-intentioned focus on keeping our kids safe, zero tolerance initially was defined as consistently enforced suspension and expulsion policies in response to weapons, drugs, and violent acts in the school setting. Over time, however, zero tolerance has come to refer to school or district-wide policies that mandate predetermined, typically harsh consequences or punishments (such as suspension and expulsion) for a wide degree of rule violations. Most frequently, zero tolerance policies address drug, weapons, violence, smoking, and school disruption in efforts to protect all students’ safety and maintain a school environment that is conducive to learning. Many administrators perceive zero tolerance policies as fast-acting interventions that send a clear, consistent message that certain behaviors are not acceptable in the school.(4)
Corporations reacted to the public outcry by following suit and started to implement zero tolerance policies as well. Faced with this historical perspective, let’s examine the journey that zero tolerance has taken in corporate America.
Viva La Difference
Although corporations started implementing zero tolerance policies, they quickly recognized some significant differences in implementing a policy for a business versus one for a school. First and foremost, it was quickly recognized that the one-size-fits-all approach would not work, since most firms have some form of progressive discipline which is built on the premise of “just cause” and “due process.” In addition, employers had to be diligent about paying attention to the myriad of discrimination laws that require consistent treatment of employees.
“Just cause” refers to the principle that “the punishment should match the severity of the crime”; thus, an employee who physically assaults another employee should be more severely disciplined than an employee who makes a threat to “throw another employee’s radio out the window if he doesn’t turn it down.”
“Due process” refers to the concept of applying progressive discipline, which promotes that an employee should be advised of inappropriate behavior and given an opportunity to correct it based on receiving coaching, feedback, and/or a series of warnings.
Both of these principles pose severe problems for a one-size-fits-all approach. This incongruence led to one of the major problems with zero tolerance: Employees perceived that it was a one-size-fits-all approach because this is what exists in the schools where their children attend; this is the reason they first learned about zero tolerance, and this is also what the media focused on. The reality is that, in the business world, it was really an incident-based approach in which each situation would be judged based on the circumstances involved, the nature of the situation, the employee’s record, current policies, etc. Consequently, if an employee made a low-level threat like the “radio incident” mentioned earlier, employee perception was that with a zero tolerance policy, the employee should be terminated. Since the employer is obligated to follow company human resource policies and apply the principles of “just cause, due process, and nondiscrimination,” employees believed the company was not serious about addressing violence because warning the person did not fit their image of zero tolerance. Their translation is that the company was willing to tolerate violence unless an employee was seriously injured or killed, which to them was ridiculous and did not mean zero tolerance. This perception leads to a serious case of cognitive dissonance, which leads to mistrust of management and the belief that the company does not have the best interests of employees in mind. Once again, best intentions gone awry.
Stephen Hirschfeld, senior partner at the San Francisco law firm, Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Kelly & Kramer, LLP, said it best, “It’s easy to state that you have a zero tolerance policy: it’s another thing to really think through what it means.” Does it mean “one strike and you’re out”? Does it mean that if you slam your fist on a desk in frustration, you’re guilty of workplace violence and will be terminated? Too often policies backfire because they’re not properly crafted or haven’t been thought through all the way.” Or as Dave Ulrich, who is widely recognized as one of the top gurus in human resources, states, “It’s one thing to state that the organization will not tolerate any form of undesirable or illegal activity, but it’s impossible to apply a standard punishment or solution for every incident. A policy needs teeth, but it also needs to be fair.”
A second problem with the zero tolerance approach is that it is reactive in nature. It, in essence, states “if you violate our workplace violence policy or act in an inappropriate manner, this behavior will not be tolerated and you will be punished.” While that approach is fine, it ignores the fundamental principle of providing a safe work environment, which is to prevent people from being injured in the first place. No safety program worth its salt would dare focus on passively waiting for injuries to occur and putting a focus on “how to” react after the fact.
The zero tolerance approach is characterized by the creation of a human resources or security policy that focuses on the organization having no tolerance for threats, threatening behavior, or violent acts. Primary focus is put on how the organization will react once inappropriate behavior has occurred. For example, one firm’s policy states, “The intent of this policy is to increase employee awareness of the procedures to be followed in the event of workplace violence.” In my opinion, this is a bit late in the process, since once violence has occurred, it is likely that someone has already been injured or worse.
Despite these issues, corporations persist with implementing zero tolerance policies because such policies make them appear to be “getting tough on violence” and they make management feel good that they are taking a stance. The sad reality is that this overzealous and politically driven approach, in many cases, undermines truly addressing potential violent situations in the workplace and, in addition, leads to discord between management and employees.(5)
As Samuel Greengard stated in his article, “Zero Tolerance: Making It Work,” “zero tolerance has become the rage. But dealing with workplace problems requires more than rhetoric. It’s about crafting an effective policy and putting all the pieces in place to make it work. Zero tolerance is a concept that sounds straightforward and simple, but is inherently complex.”(6)
In contrast to zero tolerance, we advocate a “zero incident” approach, which focuses on reducing “at risk” behaviors and organizational practices to attack the root causes of injuries so that we can intervene before incidents happen. An example of a workplace violence policy written following the zero incident approach is as follows: “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.”
Can you image going to an award banquet for Best in Class Human Resources Practices and a firm getting an award for having the “Best Response Plan for Reacting to Workplace Violence Incidents” (despite the reality that it had numerous incidents of employees getting injured or killed) and another firm getting an award for having the “Best Prevention Plan for Identifying At Risk Behaviors and Avoiding Workplace Violence Incidents” (and it has a very low incident rate of violence)? Think about it. Which firm would you vote for?
The Goal Is Zero Incidents, Not Zero Tolerance
To further illustrate the difference in the two approaches, see the comparison in Table W-1.
| Zero Tolerance | Zero Incidents |
|---|---|
| If you make a threat, you will be reported. | People know how to influence others without needing to make threats. |
| If you get in a fight, you will be terminated. | People know how to resolve conflict in positive ways to avoid escalation. |
| Abusive or intimidating behavior is not allowed. | Treating each other in a respectful manner is valued and rewarded. |
| Focus is on policy controlling behavior (rules driven). | Focus is on culture controlling behaviors (values driven). |
| Excerpted from “Zero Tolerance Is Not Enough: Making Workplace Violence Prevention Really Work.” |
The difference in the two approaches is that one focuses on prevention, whereas the other focuses on reaction.
The primary focus of the zero incident approach is to prevent incidents from occurring by identifying possible problematic or “at risk” behaviors, situations, or practices and intervening to deal with them before conflict actually erupts or escalates to violence. Second, the intent is to focus on reducing the number of “close calls” and situations in which conflicts erupt by discovering the root causes of issues and taking mitigating actions or eliminating them. And, the third phase of this approach is to resolve conflicts once they have developed in a manner that all parties feel respected and valued.
The essence of the zero incident approach is to
• Prevent: Anticipate and deal with possible problematic situations before violence actually erupts.
• Reduce: Lessen the number, intensity, and duration of incidents within an organization.
• Resolve: Pre-prepare and develop workable solutions to violence once an incident occurs.
In 1998 the Supreme Court determined in Faragher v City of Boca Raton that companies must prevent—not simply react to—a hostile workplace. Thus, the concept of having zero tolerance for workplace violence, which focuses on “how the firm will react once violence has occurred,” becomes an insufficient approach; it needs to evolve to the more progressive approach of zero incidents, which focuses on elimination of “at risk” behaviors before an incident occurs.
Implementation of a zero incident approach involves the following steps. As mentioned earlier, the number-one obstacle to developing a proactive preventative approach to reducing violence in the workplace is to face the reality that most executives and managers in organizations are in denial and believe that “it couldn’t happen here.” Results from a Gallup survey indicated that many American businesses are turning a blind eye toward warning signs of workplace violence. “The warning signs are well known, but too many companies are burying their heads in the sand,” said Frank Kenna III, president of The Marlin Company who commissioned a recent Gallup study. A lot of people rationalize the fact that they’re not confronting the issue. They say they don’t want to overreact and figure any fears are unfounded, so they ignore the signs, hoping they’ll go away. The survey reported that only 25% of respondents indicated they received any training in how to identify warning signs and what to do about them. Overcoming this mindset is the starting point to implementing a strong and effective effort to prevent workplace violence.
The Nix Model for Managing Violence Prevention is a comprehensive approach to preventing workplace violence (see Figure W-2).
Establishing a Workplace Violence Prevention Committee
Management must demonstrate a commitment by taking workplace violence seriously and appoint an influential manager to be responsible for the workplace violence prevention effort. This manager should establish a Workplace Violence Prevention Committee (frequently referred to as a Threat Management Committee). Participants on the committee should include representatives from security, human resources, occupational health and safety, legal, finance, risk management, public relations, operational management, and a union r epresentative, if applicable. Their role is to shepherd the overall implementation of the workplace violence prevention program, to provide guidance on how to address emerging workplace violence situations, and to continuously improve the overall program. Annually, the committee should be required to produce a report on the state of the workplace violence prevention program for the organization’s senior management team.
An exemplary example of the success of a committed focus on workplace violence prevention and employee safety is 7-Eleven Corporation, which has reduced its robbery rate by 71% since implementing its program in 1976.
As a convenience store, open for long hours with items such as lottery tickets and cigarettes that can be resold quickly for cash, 7-Eleven is vulnerable to shoplifting and robberies. However, the company’s philosophy is that employee safety always comes first. According to its occupational health and safety department, “Employees are trained that there is nothing in the store more valuable than them.”
7-Eleven puts this policy into practice through training that outlines specific response procedures in the event of a shoplifting incident or robbery. “We instruct our employees to ask politely if the customer would like to pay. If the customer refuses or becomes aggressive, employees are not to chase the robber…. Try to treat it like any other transaction.” The procedures are also posted in the back of each store in a helpful list of do’s and don’ts (e.g., keep it short and smooth). All employees are equipped with a personal safety device and instructed to use it if they feel they are about to be physically hurt. When a clerk is working alone, a buzzer activates every 2 hours; the clerk must push a button to disarm it. If the alarm isn’t cancelled, a system is in place to check on the clerk.
Another key to 7-Eleven’s successful violence prevention program is continual evaluation. All incidents are reported to a hotline and immediate action is taken where necessary. “It’s not a risk assessment that’s done once a year. It is done immediately after a store is robbed.” (7)
Focusing on Eliminating “At Risk” Behaviors
The Workplace Violence Prevention Committee should focus on creating a violence-free work environment by eliminating “at risk” behaviors on both an individual (internal and external) and organization level. One of the key responsibilities of the committee should also be to establish a workplace violence prevention policy which focuses on zero incidents as the goal. In a retail environment, the committee must be sure to address not only internal workplace violence, but also the more probable external threat as well, given that robbery and other crimes were the motive for 80% of workplace homicides. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLR) Research indicates that the greatest risk of work-related homicide comes from violence inflicted by third parties such as robbers and muggers. On average, one in 100 gun robberies results in a homicide (8), and annually over 300,000 retail workers become the victims of workplace violence, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, a large proportion of the homicides occurring in the retail sector are associated with robberies and attempted robberies.
The bottom line message is that the most effective way to deal with the risk of workplace violence is to recognize the risk that it poses, identify what those risks are, develop mitigating strategies to reduce or eliminate the risks, and have a comprehensive strategy that is focused on early identification and averting issues. With the value of hindsight, after an incident of workplace violence has occurred, we are generally able to identify how the incident could have been prevented. So the simple trick is to anticipate incidents by conducting “what if” planning and then implement those preventative actions in real-time, which will save real lives or prevent real injuries.
For example, a man charged with five murders at two Nashville fast-food restaurants was arrested in connection with 10 similar slayings, including the massacre of seven workers at a Palatine, Illinois, chicken restaurant in 1993. This same person was paroled in 1990 after serving about 8 years of a 20-year sentence for aggravated armed robbery at a steak house in suburban Houston. If any of the restaurants that hired him had done a background check, it is likely that he would never have been hired, and these murders could have been avoided.
The cold truth about workplace violence is that, with serious “what if” planning and diligent application of proactive measures, we have the capability of preventing most incidents.
“At risk” behaviors and organizational practices refer to individual- (internal and external) or organization-based variables or contributing factors that, when present, create a heightened possibility of workplace violence occurring.
Let’s first look at internal “at risk” behaviors (see Figure W-3):
1. The occurrence of a stressful event
2. An emotionally charged individual
3. An insensitive, uncaring, inflammatory, reactionary, toxic work environment
It is important to note that the first variable, a stressful event, is a wild card because what one person views as stressful, another takes in stride. At the same time, we can clearly predict that some events are likely to induce stress in most people, e.g., a termination, a bad performance review, criticizing someone in front of other people, addressing a person in a disrespectful or demeaning manner, etc.
The second of the three variables, an emotionally charged individual, has to do with the mental and emotional state of a person, and this is something that, if we are observant and knowledgeable regarding what to look for, we can often recognize these early warning signs. Once supervisors recognize the warning signs, if they are properly trained to intervene, they can generally interrupt escalation up the aggression scale.
The third variable, interestingly enough, focuses on the setting or environment that the person is subjected to. Within a company context, this means that an organizational culture, management style, ways of treating employees, perceived fairness of problem resolution processes, etc., can have a great bearing on either escalating or de-escalating potential hostile situations. This reality is generally overlooked by firms which tend to find it convenient to focus all the attention and responsibility regarding violence on an individual.
Research has indicated that a number of organizational variables make an organization more prone to having a violent outburst. The fact that organizational practices may be a contributing factor to a violent incident is a “dirty little secret” that businesses do not want to admit.(9)
When the three variables illustrated in Figure W-3 collide, you have a very real and present possibility for violence to occur. A fundamental belief that we subscribe to is that, if you can predict or anticipate an event, you can plan for how to deal with it.
Since this belief is not a revolutionary concept, you may be wondering why more businesses don’t take action to prevent violence in the workplace. The answer is a simple but perplexing one: Most firm’s managers are in denial that a violent incident could occur where they work. This belief subsequently freezes them and prevents any action being taken to address the problem.
Defining the Nature of External Threats/Risks to the Company
The Workplace Violence Prevention committee should research the nature of risk to retail operations based on the geographic area in which the firm operates its stores. Where there is evidence of known hazards that exist within this type business, industry, or area, specific actions should be taken to mitigate and address the problems. This is essential because these are the signs which indicate the greatest potential for violence to occur and, commensurately, represent the highest potential liability.
To illustrate the point, if you have located a retail outlet in a low-cost area, and crime data for the area indicate several robberies have occurred at other retail facilities near your location, it would be prudent to take precautionary steps to enhance security in and about your facility. This could include making sure you have sufficient lighting in the parking lot areas, providing escort service for employees leaving the building at night, asking for increased police patrols, etc. To ignore the crime data and not anticipate a potential problem puts you in a defensive position. If one of your employees is victimized while on your property or injured during a robbery, you will have to defend why you chose not to take any preventative actions.
Charles LeGrand said it best: “Failure to assess risks and take the necessary protective actions must be regarded as negligence.”
Facility Risk Assessments
Conduct periodic facility risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities that exist in your stores and/or operations facilities. Be sure to identify hazards, conditions, operations, and situations that could lead to violence. The risk assessment includes a walkthrough survey to provide the data for risk identification and the development of a comprehensive workplace violence prevention program.
Possible sources to help conduct a walkthrough survey include insurance carriers, crime prevention units of local police departments, and security or workplace violence prevention consultants.
The assessment process should include the following:
• Analyze incidents, including the characteristics of assailants and victims. Give an account of what happened before and during the incident, and note the relevant details of the situation and its outcome.
• Identify any apparent trends in injuries or incidents relating to a particular worksite, job title, activity, or time of day or week, including specific tasks that may be associated with increased risk.
• Identify factors that may make the risk of violence more likely, such as physical features of the building and environment, lighting deficiencies, lack of telephones and other communication devices, areas of unsecured access, and areas with known security problems.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of existing security measures. Assess whether those control measures are being properly used and whether employees have been adequately trained in their use.
With the continued advancement of biometric technology and their use in security, consider how these tools might be used to combat crime. For example:
• Link facial or automatic gait recognition (AGR) tools to a criminal database to identify potential robbers immediately (this has obvious limitations given that many robbers will not be in the database because they have not been convicted). Gait is technology that recognizes those distinct characteristics or unique “signature” we all create by the way we move our limbs as we walk.
• Use smart cameras that are programmed to set off a silent alarm to a police department if someone enters the premises with a mask on or shows a gun (a major limitation of this approach is that in places that have very cold weather during the winter, a lot of false positives will happen due to people having a scarf around their face).
• Use smart cameras to take a picture of each adult’s face before he or she enters the store (similar to ATM machines) between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and have it control the entry door. Post signs conspicuously at the entrance advising people that their picture must be taken to enter the store. A challenge with this approach will be managing multiple people who are at the door at the same time and having them enter in the appropriate manner.
Note that the preceding suggestions are only ideas intended to stimulate your thinking about possible biometric solutions which may provide new ways to fight crime in retail operations, since new tools and applications are being created every day.
Trade associations and other organizations also have materials that can help employers assess the risk of violent incidents in their business. In some areas, local law enforcement agencies provide free advice to business owners on ways to reduce exposure to crime. Security management consultants, workplace violence prevention consultants, insurance safety auditors, and loss prevention specialists also can help employers analyze workplace risks and offer advice for solutions. Independent experts such as these can provide fresh perspectives on implementing and improving a violence prevention program.(10)
Facility risk assessments should be an ongoing process. An effective violence prevention program will institute a system of periodic risk assessments or safety audits to review workplace hazards and the effectiveness of the control measures that have been implemented. These audits also can evaluate the impact of other operational changes (such as new store hours or changes in store layout) that were adopted for other reasons but may affect the risk of workplace violence. A safety audit is important in the aftermath of a violent incident or other serious event for reassessing the effectiveness of the violence prevention program.
According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the leading risk factor that exposes workers to the potential of violence while working is direct interaction with the public. This reality is one of the contributing factors to retail workers being highly exposed to violence, since handling money transactions and selling merchandise including alcohol or drugs are commonplace.
In addition, the following risk factors deal with the nature of the work environment:
• Store located in high crime areas
• Lighting and security provisions
• Hours of operations, e.g., working late night or early morning hours
In addition, delivery of passengers, goods, or services can create a risk as well, since thieves target these as well as brick-and-mortar stores.
Assessing the store location deals with understanding and being knowledgeable about criminal activity and security issues that exist within a reasonable proximity to your retail operations. In many jurisdictions, this information is available from local law enforcement, and additionally, there are several firms that provide crime watch data.
The number of employees on duty is of particular relevance, since working alone or in isolation is one of the working conditions that can potentially increase the likelihood of exposure to violence. Consequently, when you have employees working alone, some special precautions need to be taken:
• Enhance the lighting inside and around the business.
• Ensure workers have a panic or emergency alarm placed in an inconspicuous place that is easy to access.
• Design store so that workers have a clear line of sight to all parts of the business.
• Set up a regular communications process to check on workers or have them check in to ensure they are safe.
• Install security cameras to capture all activities.
• Post signs that state there is no cash on premises or that it is locked in a safe that the clerk does not have a key to access.
• Keep your doors and windows free of posters to ensure a clear line of sight.
• Use overhead mirrors so employees can see all parts of the store from the cash register area.
• Train your staff not to resist or engage the assailant if there is a robbery.
The workplace layout is important because you want to ensure that an employee on duty has clear visibility of what is going on in the store. This means that you should carefully consider the placement of signs or posters on windows as well as shelving or merchandise displays that might obscure the view.
Lighting should be appropriate both inside and outside your establishment. A well-lit parking lot and entrance area makes your store a less attractive target than one where the lights are dim.
Hours of operations are important because research has shown that with late night and early morning hour operations, risk of robbery increases.
Delivery of passengers, goods, or services creates and additional set of risks beyond those of the brick-and-mortar stores. Whether it is delivering food for consumption, e.g., pizza, or to warehouses, stores, etc., delivering goods is wrought with dangers. Robbery in the trucking industry is a major issue and is a significant enough problem that it warrants a section of its own within this book to adequately address it. Short-term deliveries can also be robbery targets but are also impacted by nonpayment, assaults, rape, etc. Training drivers in how to avoid potential issues and how to react is a critical step in addressing this problem.
Employees in some retail establishments may be exposed to multiple risk factors. The presence of a single risk factor does not necessarily indicate that the risk of violence is a problem in a workplace. The presence, however, of multiple risk factors or a history of workplace violence should alert an employer that the potential for workplace violence has increased.
Organizational Violence Assessments
Part of a second level of analysis the employer should undertake is to review the experience of the business over the previous 2 or 3 years. This involves collecting and examining any existing records that may shed light on the magnitude and prevalence of the risk of workplace violence. For example, injury and illness records, workers’ compensation claims, and police department robbery reports can help identify specific incidents related to workplace violence. Finding few documented cases of workplace violence does not necessarily mean that violence is not a problem in a workplace because incidents may be unreported or inconsistently documented. In some cases management may not be aware of incidents of low-intensity conflict or threats of violence to which employees have been exposed. To learn of such incidents, an employer could canvass employees about their experience while working for the business. The following questions from OSHA Recommendations may be helpful in compiling information about past incidents:
• Has your business been robbed during the past 2–3 years? Were robberies attempted? Did injuries occur due to robberies or attempts?
• Have employees been assaulted in altercations with customers?
• Have employees been victimized by other criminal acts at work (including shoplifting that became assaultive)? What kind?
• Have employees been threatened or harassed while on duty? What was the context of those incidents?
• In each of the cases with injuries, how serious were the injuries?
• In each case, was a firearm involved? Was a firearm discharged? Was the threat of a firearm used? Were other weapons used?
• What part of the business was the target of the robbery or other violent incident’?
• At what time of day did the robbery or other incident occur?
• How many employees were on duty?
• Were the police called to your establishment in response to the incident? When possible, obtain reports of the police investigation.
• What tasks were the employees performing at the time of the robbery or other incident? What processes and procedures may have put employees at risk of assault? Similarly, were there factors that may have facilitated an outcome without injury or harm?
• Were preventive measures already in place and used correctly?
• What were the actions of the victim during the incident? Did these actions affect the outcome of the incident in any way?
These types of data can be key in identifying “at risk” factors on the organization level.
Employers with more than one store or business location should review the history of violence at each operation. Different experiences in those stores can provide insights into factors that can make workplace violence more or less likely. Contacting similar local businesses, community and civic groups, and local police departments is another way to learn about workplace violence incidents in the area. In addition, trade associations and industry groups often provide useful information about conditions and trends in the industry as a whole.(11)
Establishing a Workplace Violence Prevention Policy
A cornerstone of your program is to establish a clear workplace violence prevention policy that will set the framework and provide guidance to managers, supervisors, and employees.
(See model policies at www.workplaceviolence911.com/ModelPolicies). The focus should be on violence prevention, with the ultimate goal being zero incidents. In addition, the policy should make the concept of treating people in a respectful manner and maintaining their dignity a central theme that is integrated into the policy and its communication.
Illustrative of a good workplace violence policy statement is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Workplace Violence Policy:
A safe working environment for all employees, free from violence or any threat of violence, is one goal of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Violence and threatening behaviors in any form are unacceptable and will not be tolerated…. The cooperation of supervisors, managers, and employees is necessary to implement this policy and maintain a safe working environment … Supervisors and managers are expected to take immediate action to investigate reported threats or violence and any suspicious items or activities, and with the assistance of appropriate officials, reduce or eliminate the risk of workplace violence.
Note that from an internal perspective, many organizations are also starting to incorporate directly into their workplace violence prevention policy statements that make it clear that bullying behaviors are not acceptable. Make it clear that bullying is considered threatening behavior because it can cause emotional abuse, can lead to situations which create a hostile work environment, and also can create hostile feelings between employees, which can lead to violence.
In addition, firms need to address domestic violence in their policy to ensure that a supportive work environment is created for victims of domestic violence and that also takes a stance against employees that are abusers. Businesses are playing an important role in helping to address domestic violence (see the website for the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence at www.CAEPV.org for more information on the employer’s role). Note that encouraging employees to report domestic violence situations and restraining orders is important too so that you can appropriately react and plan to prevent for potential violent intrusions from significant others.
Establish a process for record keeping to be able to track actual threats, incidents, close calls, escalating conflicts, etc., for trends or patterns. Also evaluate interventions and programmatic efforts to evaluate their success and to maintain continuous improvement.
Assess the organization’s conflict resolution process and bolster it to ensure it is an effective tool for fairly addressing employee concerns and conflicts and resolving problems. Usage should be tracked (keep in mind that high usage is not necessarily a bad indicator and many times indicates people trust your process) and periodically assess how employees are feeling about the process.
Translate your workplace violence policy and training into multiple languages based on the predominant languages spoken in your workplace.
When employees are represented by a union, you should consider introducing a workplace violence prevention initiative to be jointly developed as a part of the next contract. You should work with the union to predetermine how cases, complaints, and situations will be handled; define processes to be used; and consider including mediation to provide an objective third party to negotiate outcomes.
No Weapons in the Workplace Policy
Incorporate a “No Weapons in the Workplace” provision into your workplace violence prevention policy or establish a separate policy that clearly establishes that no weapons are allowed on the premises and employees are prohibited from possessing a weapon while on duty.
There is a lot of noise right now about the right to bear arms and that right extending into the workplace; however, as an employer, you have to ask yourself whether you really want a bunch of employees walking around with or having easy access to a firearm given the drama of human behavior that occurs in organizations. It is a formula destined for disaster.
On the other hand, small convenience stores have a challenging situation when they have employees working alone. In this situation, I advocate several options that could help provide a more secure store:
• If possible, have an armed guard on duty in the store. This could be on a full-time or rotational basis. Note that if a rotational basis is chosen, it should be structured so that it is not a predicable schedule that can easily be identified. Recognizing the potential cost for hiring an armed guard, one option would be to see if other retailers in the area are interested in sharing the expense to have the guard patrol their stores as well. If guard service is chosen, I suggest you conspicuously post signs stating “Armed Guard on Duty.”
• Another option that should be considered is to build relationships with police officers by offering incentives to frequent your store. This could be in the form of free coffee and donuts if you are a food retailer or other merchandise discounts to attract them to frequently visit your store. Some police departments prohibit this process; however, an easy way to address this is to offer police officers a significant discount, e.g., for $1 they can have unlimited coffee and donuts for the week.
Enhancing Physical Security Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
Use CPTED engineering/architectural control processes to remove the hazards identified from the workplace or create a barrier between employees and the hazard (see www.cpted.net/home.html for more information). The following physical changes in the workplace can help reduce violence-related risks or hazards in retail establishments:(12)
• Improve visibility, as visibility is important in preventing robbery in two respects: First, employees should be able see their surroundings; and second, persons outside the store, including police on patrol, should be able to see into the store. Employees in the store should have an unobstructed view of the street, clear of shrubbery, trees, or any form of clutter that a criminal could use to hide. Signs located in windows should be either low or high to allow good visibility into the store. The customer service and cash register areas should be visible from outside the establishment. Shelves should be low enough to assure good visibility throughout the store. Convex mirrors, two-way mirrors, and an elevated vantage point can give employees a more complete view of their surroundings.
• Maintain adequate lighting within and outside the establishment to make the store less appealing to a potential robber by making detection more likely. The parking area and the approach to the retail establishment should be well lit (during nighttime hours of operation.) Exterior illumination may need upgrading in order to allow employees to see what is occurring outside the store.
• Use fences and other structures to direct the flow of customer traffic to areas of greater visibility.
• Use drop safes to limit the availability of cash to robbers. Employers using drop safes can post signs stating that the amount of cash on hand is limited.
• Install video surveillance equipment and closed-circuit television (CCTV) to deter robberies by increasing the risk of identification. This may include interactive video equipment. The video recorder for the CCTV should be secure and out of sight. Posting signs that surveillance equipment is in use and placing the equipment near the cash register may increase the effectiveness of the deterrence.
• Put height markers on exit doors to help witnesses provide more complete descriptions of assailants.
• Use door detectors to alert employees when persons enter the store.
• Control access to the store with door buzzers.
• Use silent and personal alarms to notify police or management in the event of a problem. It is a good idea to have them in multiple places in the store.
• Make sure that your staff understands that the rule in using silent or panic alarms is that they have to be able to press the alarm button without endangering their life. For this reason, many holdup systems are designed such that the act of removing a certain bill in the register activates the alarm, which means there are not additional movements to alert the robber to your actions.
• In some cases to avoid angering a robber, however, an employee may need to wait until the assailant has left before triggering an alarm.
• Install physical barriers such as bullet-resistant enclosures with passthrough windows between customers and employees to protect employees from assaults and weapons in locations with a history of robberies or assaults and located in high-crime areas.
Also note that when you are building or retrofitting facilities, it is a good time to maximize crime prevention by using CPTED. For example, wiring a building for closed circuit security when it is being built is much more economical than retrofitting it later.
Also provide store personnel with handheld alarms or noise devices and/or communication devices to be able to get help, e.g., cellular phones, pagers, etc., to use while on duty alone.
Prevention Strategies to Avoid Being a Target of Robbery
After you assess violence hazards, the next step is to develop measures to protect employees from the identified risks of injury and violent acts. (13) Workplace violence prevention and control programs include specific engineering and work practice controls to address identified hazards. The tools listed in this section are not intended to be a one-size-fits-all prescription. No single control will protect employees. To provide effective deterrents to violence, the employer may wish to use a combination of controls in relation to the hazards identified through the hazard analysis.
Since the major risk of death or serious injury to retail employees is from robbery-related violence, an effective program would include, but not be limited to, steps to reduce the risk of robbery. In general, a business may reduce the risk of robbery by increasing the effort that the perpetrator must expend (target hardening, controlling access, and deterring offenders); increasing the risks to the perpetrator (entry/exit screening, formal surveillance by employees and others); and reducing the rewards to the perpetrator (removing the target, identifying properly, and removing inducements)(14)
Physical and behavioral changes at a site can substantially reduce the frequency of robberies. A test group of 7-Eleven stores that eliminated or reduced several risk factors experienced a 30% drop in robberies compared to a control group. Target-hardening efforts, including a basic robbery deterrence package, were implemented in 7-Eleven stores nationwide in 1976. The 7-Eleven program tried to make the store a less attractive target by reducing the cash on hand, maximizing the take/risk ratio, and training employees. After implementing the program throughout the company, the robbery rate at 7-Eleven stores decreased by 64% over 20 years.(15)
The National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) developed a robbery and violence deterrence program based on these elements and has made it available to its members and others since 1987. NACS also has supported research in this area. NACS has available on CD-ROM a training program that is available to address this issue: “Robbery Deterrence & Personal Safety Training Program.”
Other deterrents that may reduce the potential for robbery include making sure that there are security cameras, time-release safes, other 24-hour businesses at the location, no easy escape routes or hiding places, and that the store is closed during late-night hours.
OSHA has some very good suggestions in its “Recommendations to Prevent Workplace Violence in Late-Night Retail Industry:”
Avoiding Being a Target of Robbery
(a) Safer Working Practices
• Be alert—keep an eye on people in the shop.
• Make sure you have safety, security, and emergency procedures.
• Train your staff and make sure they know and follow safety procedures.
• Minimize cash—keep only a small amount of money in the cash register.
• Bank regularly—keep a minimum amount of money on the premises.
• Restrict access to cash-handling areas.
• Keep the back door locked (but make sure you have an emergency exit).
• Keep safes and drop boxes locked; don’t leave the keys in sight.
• Have your cash collected or do your banking at different times of the day.
• Keep doors locked before and after business hours and, if possible, when counting cash.
(b) Physical Options
• Position the cash-handling areas away from entries and exits.
• Separate the cash-handling area from the general workplace.
• Make sure staff can see in and out of the store (remove posters from windows).
• Mirrors can be used to help staff see the whole shop; however, make sure that the mirrors do not allow potential offenders to see the cash area.
• Lighting can make the target highly visible and increase the chances of offender identification.
• Remove signs that may block your vision of the store.
• Install counters with an elevated place for the cash register.
• Have antijump barriers fitted in front of cash-handling devices.
• Have a mini safe/drop box, strong room, or other safety box fitted and make sure it’s out of public sight.
• Bullet-resistant barriers or ascending ballistic screens can be fitted to the cash-handling areas.
• Block all alternative accesses to building (without blocking off a fire exit).
• Have time-delay locks fitted to all compartments and counter safes.
• Use security guards or other security guarding devices.
• Display emergency numbers in a prominent position for staff.
• Make sure you have a first aid kit available to all staff.
• Place a colored height chart next to the entrance of the store.
(c) Electronic Security
• Closed-circuit television (CCTV)
• Digital camera surveillance and recording
• Still 35 mm cameras mounted in predominant positions
• Holdup alarms fitted in all workplaces, centrally monitored and silent in operation
• 24-hour perimeter alarm system
• Camera and alarm activation points in frequently used positions
• Mobile and fixed duress alarms
• Door alarms—to alert staff that someone is entering the premises
Synchronizing Your Personnel, Security, and Safety Policies
Synchronize your personnel, security, and safety policies to ensure they create an integrated workplace violence prevention effort. It is not unusual that we see conflicting policies developed in their respective “silos” that have conflicting or incongruent information. This can really hurt you in court.
Developing Crisis Response Procedures
Establish a crisis response team (specially trained to deal with crisis) and develop crisis response procedures to deal with an incident. Retail operations should have a robbery response team, since the possibility of an occurrence in this area is high. Select members based on pre-established criteria, which should include their ability to remain calm during a crisis or pressure situations, special skills related to handling crises or emergencies as well as technical competency related to health care, mental health, knowledge of facilities, public relations, security, etc. The team should put a crisis communication and public relations plan in place before a crisis occurs, and the overall plan should be rehearsed.
Myths of Disaster Planning
One of the cruelest myths in crisis and workplace violence prevention planning is the belief that plans adopted, but not tested, will actually work as planned.
Another costly fallacy is for organizations to focus solely on protecting their hard assets—e.g., facilities, technology, information, and networks—and to forget their people. It is one thing to test your alarm systems, system recovery processes, backing up information protections, and another to have your people improperly trained or not trained in what they need to do. Even worse is when the actions they have been told to do cause confusion because they have never been tested to see that the procedures actually function as intended. You need to prepare your people for crisis because they will make the difference in how quickly and effectively you are able to return to normal business operations.
The third myth regarding crisis planning is the belief that you can effectively insure losses in a disaster. It is highly likely that “settling claims after a disaster is not a pretty picture” and that insurers trying to mitigate casualty losses often will not make it easy for executives trying to recover quickly.
Note that while the responsibility for addressing prevention of workplace violence typically is assigned to either human resources or security, remember that the controller has a critical role and responsibility with regards to business continuity and protecting the organization’s assets. Consequently, make sure they are included in the process.(16)
Additionally, pre-establish a critical incident debriefing process and skilled counselors to be able to assist victims after an incident. Your employee assistance program or an external community psychological network will be able to provide these types of support services.
Keep in mind that the speed at which you are able to address the needs of employees who have experienced a traumatic event will dictate how fast you are able to return work levels to normal operations. It is not unusual that within a few days following an incident reactions such as fear, anxiety, and exhaustion, as well as anger may surface. In the long run, lack of confidence, depression, and the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are possible outcomes.
Emergency Protocol with Police
Create an emergency protocol with police. This should include identifying who is the contact person when an incident needs to be reported. It is also important to identify a backup contact and also to pre-inform the contacts regarding who is responsible to contact them from your firm. You should also have the contacts visit your site and learn your facility layout, if possible. In addition, you should make your address and building numbers clearly visible.
While it is prudent management to have established a protocol with law enforcement, the stark reality is that in most serious workplace violence situations involving a homicide, the incident is over in 3–5 minutes. According to Department of Justice statistics, for 65% of police departments, the time to respond to life-threatening situations is more than 6 minutes, and the best response times hover around 5 minutes, 20 seconds. This means that if your plan is built on the premise that the police will “save the day,” it may be wishful thinking. Thus, your workplace violence prevention team has to think about how to develop a plan that presumes you are on your own.
Note: My statements should not be construed to mean that you should not call the police, because they have a critical role to play and should be contacted immediately.
However, practically speaking from a logistical response viewpoint, even the most responsive police force will be challenged to reach you in time to prevent many incidents, so you have to plan for this reality.
Enhancing Hiring Procedures
Enhance hiring procedures to include background screening processes focused on screening out dishonest or low-integrity applicants before they are hired. This step is essential because it is estimated that a significant amount of theft is committed by employees, and a significant number of robberies are assisted by an “insider.” Taking every step you can to try to weed out these problematic individuals before you hire them is very important to your business.
There are several other tools available to help you screen applicants. Use critical behavior traits to identify behavior-based interview questions to recognize potential problems during your interviews. (See “Complete Hiring Guide to Screen for Violence Prone Individuals” for detailed coverage of enhanced hiring procedures, available at www.Workplaceviolence911.com.)
There are also numerous psychological tests and assessments on the market that purport to be able to identify dishonesty and low integrity traits. The Conover Company provides “The Violence Prevention Map,” which is a tool to gauge how an individual views himself or herself in relationship to violence. The total score is a predictor of how individuals view their own ability to control their behavior and get along with other people, especially in potentially stressful, hostile, or threatening situations. The higher the score, the greater the risk of violence the organization may expect.
Firms should closely evaluate the potential effectiveness of these tools. However, when a validated tool is used as a part of an overall set of screening tools, they will likely provide additional information that can help make a better informed hiring decision.
In addition, it is critical that firms conduct background screening. Following are some of the types of background checks that you should consider:
• Reference checking from previous employers
• Criminal background checks (counties, state, nationwide, international)
You will need to decide whether you want to conduct these background screenings internally or outsource them to a firm that specializes in this area. An excellent source to identify potential background screening firms is www.PreemploymentDirectory.com, which is a comprehensive online listing that features background screening firms. Also be sure to review the site’s “Guide to Selecting a Background Screening Firm.”
Accurate Background, Inc. (www.accuratebackground.com), a background screening firm in Lake Forest, California, has created “Risk Reduction Technology,” a patent-pending rules-engine application which reduces liability within the retail industry, as well as the workload for their human resources and recruitment sectors by streamlining the review process of a candidate’s background report. Retailers with multiple locations benefit from Risk Reduction Technology because it was created to eliminate human error and personal bias across the board. It stores the retailer’s hiring threshold criteria and allows the retailer to define and refine adjudication needs as necessary.
Training Managers, Supervisors, and Employees
Provide ongoing workplace violence prevention training for managers, supervisors, and employees. Training your employees how to respond during a robbery can lower the risk of their being killed on the job. Some organizations are reluctant to be associated with such training because they fear it sends the message that their stores are dangerous places to work or shop.
Such companies may face not only increased risks from robberies, but also greater liability in court. For example, the California Court of Appeals recently ruled that every business has a legal duty to tell employees how to handle robberies. It appears that the company named in the suit was held liable because it had not trained its employees on what to do during a robbery.(17)
Training should be provided in the following areas:
• Implementation of workplace violence prevention policy
• How to identify early warning signs and how to appropriately intervene
What should be included in a training program?
• How to be alert and identify possible suspicious behavior
Some key points for training include the following:
• One of the most important points to teach employees is to give up the cash willingly. Explain to them that their life is not worth whatever is in the register and to cooperate with the bad guy. Resistance is futile and may get the employee killed.
• Also, teach employees to announce their actions to the robber by saying something like, “I’m going to reach in the cash register and get the money now.” They should keep their hands in plain view and not make any sudden movements.
• 7-Eleven, Inc,. of Dallas also “tells employees not to try to stop a shoplifter from fleeing the store…. The merchandise is not worth the risk of injury.”
• In contrast to a robbery, if a criminal attempts to abduct employees or take them to a back room or sexually assault them, employees should be taught to get away using any means possible.
Following are tips on what to do after an incident, including whom to contact:
• Train employees to lock the store and avoid touching anything the robber may have touched. If the store has a video camera, remove the tape as soon as possible so that it will not be copied over.
• Train employees how to use security devices.
• Ensure confidentiality. Make sure employees do not tell anybody about how much money is kept on the premises, etc.
• Ensure safe work practices; e.g., don’t leave the rear door open late at night because it’s hot, or don’t haul the trash out late at night without looking to see if someone is there, or even better, avoid putting trash out until later.
Survival is the number one priority during a robbery or violent incident.
WorkCover (www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Publications/Industry/RetailandWholesale/default.htm) provides an excellent overview that everyone in the retail industry should follow. It includes a number of simple rules to reduce the likelihood of injury if an incident occurs.
Surviving a Robbery or Violent Incident
1. Follow instructions; do exactly what the offender says.
4. Do not make a sudden movement.
5. Remain inside the workplace; do not chase the offender.
6. Show your hands: If you have to move, keep your hands where the offender can see them and tell them what you are going to do.
Mental notes: Note as much information about the offender as possible, if it is safe to do so. Look at things like height, hair color, eyes, physical condition and tattoos/special marks.
• Importance of reporting and responding to threats, incidents, etc.
• How to de-escalate potentially hostile situations including during a robbery
Focus on developing core competencies in effective conflict resolution, hostility/anger management, emotional intelligence, and respectful communications.
WorkCover’s Survival Rules for a Robbery or Violent Incident
Employer
• Arrange counseling for the victims because they may suffer from post-traumatic stress. The symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder include increased heart rate, insomnia, muscle tension, hypersensitivity, fear of returning to work, depression, grief, guilt, and anxiety
New staff should be trained prior to commencing duty. Existing staff should be given training as soon as possible if they have not yet received it. Refresher training should be provided regularly, at least twice a year or when there are changes to procedures.
Involving Employees in the Prevention Effort
Make sure all employees know that workplace violence prevention is everybody’s business and help them understand the important role they can play in reducing violence. A truly effective prevention effort must maximize the participation of employees and their support. By encouraging the following practices, employers can enlist employee support, and they will contribute substantially to a successful effort to prevent violence at work.
Employee involvement is important for several reasons. First, front-line employees are an important source of information about the operations of the business and the environment in which the business operates. This may be particularly true for employees working at night in retail establishments when higher level managers may not routinely be on duty. Second, inclusion of a broad range of employees in the violence prevention program has the advantage of harnessing a wider range of experience and insight than that of management alone. Third, front-line workers can be valuable problem solvers because their personal experience often enables them to identify practical solutions to problems and to perceive hidden impediments to proposed changes. Finally, employees who have a role in developing prevention programs are more likely to support and carry out those programs.(17)
Additional interventions that employers can use to focus on preventing workplace violence internally include
• Collect utilization data from the employee assistance program and analyze the results to identify potentially problematic issues and areas.
• Conduct a “respect” audit of your human resource and security policies to ensure “treating people in a respectful manner” is built into your processes. This is particularly important in designing termination, layoff, and discipline procedures, which need to sensitive to ensuring fair, respectful, and dignified treatment of employees. Special precautions should be taken when “at risk” behaviors are present. Heed the words of Dick Ault, PhD, a former FBI agent specializing in profiling: “You have to approach the firing of anyone with the utmost of dignity, even people who really don’t deserve it.”
• Publish a list identifying whom to call and resources available to assist with issues.
For large retailers, an emerging direction for internal incidents of workplace violence you should be aware of is that covert sabotage of work processes often occurs when employees feel angry toward their employer. Studies reveal a direct correlation between prevalence of employee conflict and the amount of damage and theft of inventory and equipment. Much of the cost incurred by this factor is hidden from management’s view, often excused as “accidental” or “inadvertent” errors. This cost is almost certainly greater than you realize.
A Time Bomb
A former computer network administrator was found guilty in May 2000 of intentionally causing irreparable damage to his company’s computer system. He created a “time bomb” program that permanently deleted all the high-tech manufacturing company’s sophisticated manufacturing programs. The damage, lost contracts, and lost productivity totaled more than $10 million.
Why did he do it? He was demoted after working for the company for about 10 years. He soon began developing the bomb, which he set off 2 weeks after he was terminated the following year.(18)
According to an article published in the August 2005 edition of COMPUTERWORLD), in today’s era of increased outsourcing, corporate downsizing, salary reductions, and failed pension-plan promises, company networks are increasingly being attacked by disgruntled employees. In this hostile environment, searching for the source of sabotage should start inside.
A recent study sponsored by Risk Control Strategies, a threat management and risk assessment firm, found that an overwhelming majority of 223 security and human resources executives who manage between 500 and 900 employees said workplace violence is a bigger problem now than it was 2 years ago. As a result, 23% said employees have intentionally and maliciously downloaded viruses over the past 12 months. The study found that hitting employees in the pocketbook is prompting the burgeoning retaliation.
A recent study of IT outsourcing trends sponsored by DiamondCluster International Inc., a business and technology consulting firm, supports this conclusion, stating that 88% of outsourcers cited employee backlash as their primary concern. Cognizant of buyers’ unease, outsourcing providers limit their onsite presence to keep the “face of outsourcing” out of sight from employees, according to the study.
Using viruses as a weapon against senior management is a people problem that can’t be solved solely through technological means. For IT security managers, internal investigations will require a whole new set of workplace violence-prevention skills and unprecedented coordination with HR executives.
Summary
To summarize, many managers view workplace violence as random acts of violence that are unpredictable, and therefore nothing can be done to address them. While we can’t eliminate robberies, we can harden our facilities or make them less attractive to criminals, which has been shown to reduce robbery rates. Remember, if we can anticipate it, we can plan for it.
Despite our best attempts to place the blame on the individual’s behavior, the organization is not blameless. Individual violence is the tragic aberration of an organization’s culture—the culmination of personal frustration that has built to a crescendo because of perceived injustice, humiliation, loss of dignity, shame, perceived loss of value and/or control, which ultimately explodes into a desperate act.(19) External violence is likewise an aberration of our society’s culture, which, for numerous sociological reasons, has led a person to a life of crime. Nevertheless that person’s behavior patterns are oftentimes predictable and follow a pattern, which means we have an opportunity to combat them.
Consequently, acts of workplace violence can be reduced and many costs can be avoided with forethought, strategic planning, and progressive action. Anticipating being a target is not wishful thinking, but instead is prudent and good business decision making.
In the final analysis, Suzanne Milton, manager of the workplace environment improvement program for the U.S. Postal Service is right in stating, “There is absolutely no way to eliminate all workplace violence. But it is possible to take a stand on the issue and back it up with training and assistance programs that really work.”
Workplace violence prevention is no simple proposition; however, we have presented a comprehensive framework that can be used to intervene in the cycle and address many of the known factors that lead to violence in the workplace. The intent has been to provide retail store managers, human resource professionals, and security professionals with an increased understanding of the crucial role that firms can play in implementing an effort to address workplace violence prevention and to mitigate the avoidable cost impact.
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 policy is more than a battle cry engineered to satisfy customers, shareholders, and the media. It’s just plain smart. Saving lives and preventing violence don’t happen in a vacuum. They require careful thought, action, and leadership. Companies that are serious about workplace violence prevention and understand the importance of implementing a comprehensive approach to addressing this life-threatening phenomenon will in the long run come out ahead.
1 Dealing with the Risk of Workplace Violence,’ Security Magazine, April 2005.
3 Pistol, Erik, A Road To Hell Paved with Good Intentions, September 19, 2002, NewsWithViews.com.
4 Zero Tolerance and Alternative Strategies: A Fact Sheet for Educators and Policymakers, The National Association of School Psychologists. http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheet/zt_fs.html.
5 Zero Tolerance is Not Enough: Making Workplace Violence Prevention Really Work, National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., March 2003.
6 Greengard, Samuel, Zero Tolerance: Making It Work, Workforce Magazine, May 1999, Vol. 78, No. 5.
7 “Preventing Violence in the Workplace,” WorkSafe Magazine, April 2005, Common Factors to Violence Prone Organizations, National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., September 2004.
8 Recommendations for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in Late-Night Retail Establishments, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA 3153, 1998.
9 Common Factors to violence prone organizations (2004, September) National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc.
10 The theoretical concepts for this approach include “situational crime prevention;” Clarke, 1983, and “crime prevention through environmental design” (CPTED), Hunter and Jeffery, 1991.
11 Recommendations for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in Late-Night Retail Establishments, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA 3153, 1998.
12 Recommendations for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in Late-Night Retail Establishments, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA 3153, 1998.
13 Comments submitted to OSHA by the Southland Corporation, 1996. bid.
14 The Financial Impact of Workplace Violence, National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., March 2004.
15 “Targets behind the counter – workplace safety and security,” HR Magazine, August 1999.
16 Recommendations for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in Late-Night Retail Establishments, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA 3153, 1998.
17 The Financial Impact of Workplace Violence, National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., March 2004.
18 Dan Dana, Ph.D., Dana Mediation Institute, Inc., The Dana Measure of the Financial Cost of Organizational Conflict: An Interpretive Guide, 2001, www.mediationworks.com.
19 Dan Dana, Ph.D., Dana Mediation Institute, Inc., The Dana Measure of the Financial Cost of Organizational Conflict: An Interpretive Guide, 2001, www.mediationworks.com.
20 Dana D. The Dana measure of the financial cost of organizational conflict: An interpretive guide. www.mediationworks.com, 2001.
21 Dana D. The Dana measure of the financial cost of organizational conflict: An interpretive guide. www.mediationworks.com, 2001.
1 Greengard, Samuel, Zero Tolerance: Making It Work, Workforce Magazine, May 1999, Vol. 78, No. 5.
2 National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). www.Nacsonline.com.
3 www.Workplaceviolence911.com.
4 WorkCover. http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Publications/Industry/RetailandWholesale/default.htm.
5 “Preventing violence in the workplace,” WorkSafe Magazine, April 2005. http://www.worksafebc.com/.