On August 20, 1986, a part-time letter carrier named Patrick H. Sherrill, facing possible dismissal after a troubled work history, walked into the Edmond, Oklahoma post office where he worked, and shot 14 people to death before killing himself. Though the most deadly, the Edmond tragedy was not the first episode of its kind in this period. In just the previous 3 years, four postal employees were killed by present or former coworkers in separate shootings in Johnston, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; and Atlanta, Georgia. The shock of the Edmond killings raised public awareness to the kind of incident now most commonly associated with the phrase “workplace violence”—murder or other violent acts by a disturbed, aggrieved employee or ex-employee against coworkers or supervisors. An early appearance of the phrase itself in Nexis, a database of articles in many major U.S. newspapers, was in August 1989, in a Los Angeles Times account of yet-another post office shooting.

Today, mass murders in the workplace by unstable employees have become media-intensive events. In fact, the apparent rise in such cases may have been an impression created by this increased media attention. Still, the frequency of episodes following the Edmond post office killings was startling. In Southern California alone, one summary showed, over an 8-year span from mid-1989 to mid-1997, there were 15 workplace homicide incidents, six with multiple victims that killed 29 people. (Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation) In subsequent years, major workplace crimes across the country included four state lottery executives killed by a Connecticut lottery accountant (March 1998); seven coworkers killed by a Xerox technician in Honolulu (November 1999); seven slain by a software engineer at the Edgewater Technology Company in Wakefield, Massachusetts (December 2000); four killed by a 66-year-old former forklift driver at the Navistar Plant in Chicago (February 2001); three killed by an insurance executive at Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield in New York City (September 2002); three killed by a plant worker at a manufacturing plant in Jefferson City, Missouri (July 2, 2003); and six killed by a plant worker at a Lockheed-Martin aircraft plant in Meridian, Mississippi (July 8, 2003). (The Chicago, New York, Mississippi, and Connecticut shooters killed themselves. In the Honolulu and Massachusetts cases, the shooters went to trial. Both pleaded insanity but were convicted, and both received the same sentence of life in prison without parole.)

On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook elementary school in the village of Newtown, CT. It was the second deadliest mass shooting by a single person in US history, after the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech massacre that killed 32 people and wounded 17.

These examples point out the need for diligence on the part of all employees and for security officers to be vigilant in their observations, especially while on patrols (both internal and external). Security personnel should note that the emergency exit door that they often find propped open (usually because employees exit the facility to smoke) may be used by others who seek to do harm. Many perpetrators will often enter a facility or building via a main access point or exit door.

The following observable behavior may suggest possible victimization (Source: University of Iowa study):

Domestic violence and workplace violence are also related in another way: the evolution of domestic violence during the last several decades as a specific legal, social, and law enforcement issue can provide a model for similarly identifying and developing responses to violence in the workplace. A particular concern when domestic and workplace violence intersects is the possibility that the victim, not the offender, will end up being punished. All too frequently, when an employee is being stalked, harassed, or threatened at work, an employer will decide that the quickest and easiest solution is to kick the problem out the door and fire the employee, rather than look for ways to protect the employee and his or her coworkers. Although common, especially when low-status, low-paying jobs are involved, this practice raises obvious ethical questions—and possibly issues of legal liability as well.

As with any other threat, the first requirement for protecting employees from domestic violence and/or stalking at the workplace is finding out that the threat exists. This can be particularly difficult in domestic abuse cases, where abuse victims often remain silent out of shame, embarrassment, a sense of helplessness, and fear. Just as a supportive workplace climate makes employees feel safe in reporting other threats, an environment of trust and respect will make it easier for someone fearing domestic violence or stalking to tell an employer and seek assistance or protection. Perhaps more than with any other risk, employees facing domestic threats may tend to confide most easily in coworkers rather than supervisors, managers, or a company’s security force. It is also coworkers who are most likely to sense that someone they work with may be at risk from an abusive relationship, even if the person does not say anything explicitly. Employers need to be careful about violating privacy or asking employees to break a coworker’s confidence, but it is entirely reasonable and justifiable to encourage disclosure when others in the workplace may also be in danger.

Beyond trying to create and maintain a generally supportive workplace atmosphere, employers can provide specific training to help the workforce to be more aware and sensitive to signs of possible domestic abuse. Training can also include teaching ways to persuade a reluctant coworker to tell supervisors and accept help an employer may be able to offer. Although domestic violence and stalking are largely thought of as violence against women and thus as a “woman’s problem”, training and awareness programs should be directed at all employees, men and women alike. For employees involved in security or who will take part in the threat assessment and response, an employer can offer additional training focusing on how best to deal with domestic abuse victims. The same or similar training should be provided to anyone working with victims in a company’s employment assistance program. By both training efforts and providing help to at-risk workers, employers should draw on outside resources as well as their own: law enforcement, women’s law and antiviolence advocacy groups, and social service agencies, for example.

When an employer becomes aware that an employee is being stalked, harassed, threatened, or abused and that the risk has or may come into the workplace, the threat should be subjected to the same evaluation procedure as any other violent threat to assess the likelihood of violence and determine the best means of intervention. In almost all cases, employers should advise police of the circumstances, risk of violence, and possible criminal violations (of harassment or stalking laws, for instance) and involve law enforcement professionals in assessing and managing the threat. During and after the assessment, someone—from security, human resources, or a supervisor—should be responsible for keeping in close touch with the abuse victim, not only to help protect his or her safety and meet any needs that arise, but also to make sure of receiving any relevant information about the abuser (who the victim, presumably, will know better than anyone else in the workplace).

However, contrary to popular opinion, sensational multiple homicides represent a very small number of workplace violence incidents. The majority of incidents that employees/managers have to deal with on a daily basis are lesser cases of assaults, domestic violence, stalking, threats, harassment (including sexual harassment), and physical and/or emotional abuse that make no headlines. Many of these incidents, in fact, are not even reported to company officials, let alone to police. Estimates of the costs from lost time and wages, reduced productivity, medical costs, workers’ compensation payments, and legal and security expenses are even less exact, but they clearly run into many billions of dollars.

Millions of workers experience violence or the threat of violence in their workplaces every year. These crimes range from physical assaults to robbery and homicide. Although the numbers of such crimes have significantly declined in recent years, workplace violence is the second-leading cause of occupational injury. Workers in certain occupations—such as nurses, utility workers, taxi drivers, letter carriers, and especially those who work alone or at night—are particularly vulnerable. Unlike other crimes, the greatest proportions of these crimes are committed by strangers. The majority of workplace homicides are shootings committed by robbers. Decreasing the occurrence of these crimes is a growing concern for employers and employees nationwide.

Homicide is the second-leading cause of fatal occupational injury, at 18 percent of such injuries [3]. Between 2005 and 2009, about 70 percent of workplace homicides were committed by robbers and other assailants, whereas about 21 percent were committed by work associates [4].

In 2011, a total of 21 percent of female fatal work injuries were homicides [5]. In 40 percent of these female workplace homicides, the perpetrators were relatives—almost all being a spouse or a domestic partner [5]. Only 9 percent of male fatal work injuries were homicides. In male workplace homicides, 2 percent of the perpetrators were relatives [5].

In 2011, 22 percent of female workplace homicides were committed during the commission of a robbery. Robbers were the most common assailants in workplace homicides of male workers [5].

Among workplace homicides that occurred between 2005 and 2009, about 28 percent involved victims in sales and related occupations, and about 17 percent involved victims in protective service occupations [6].

In 2011, a total of 456 persons holding management positions were fatally injured in the workplace. Of this total, 108 fatalities resulted from violence and other injuries by persons or animals [7].

In 2008, 15 percent of all nonfatal violent crimes and of all property crimes were committed against victims who were at work or on duty at the time [8]. Of the nonfatal violent crimes committed against victims who were working or on duty in 2008, 82 percent were simple assaults, 15 percent were aggravated assaults, 2 percent were rapes or sexual assaults, and 2 percent were robberies [8]. From 2002 to 2009, the rate of nonfatal workplace violence declined by 35 percent, following a 62 percent decline in the rate from 1993 to 2002 [6].

As the attention to the issue has grown, occupational safety specialists and other analysts have broadly agreed that responding to workplace violence requires attention to more than just an actual physical attack. Homicide and other physical assaults are on a continuum that also include domestic violence, stalking, threats, harassment, bullying, emotional abuse, intimidation, and other forms of conduct that create anxiety, fear, and a climate of distrust in the workplace. All are part of the workplace violence problem. Prevention programs that do not consider harassment in all forms and threats are unlikely to be effective. While agreeing on that broader definition of the problem, specialists have also come to a consensus that workplace violence falls into four broad categories:

Type 1: Violent acts by criminals who have no other connection with the workplace but enter to commit robbery or another crime.

Type 2: Violence directed at employees by customers, clients, patients, students, inmates, or any others for whom an organization provides services.

Type 3: Violence against coworkers, supervisors, or managers by a present or former employee.

Type 4: Violence committed in the workplace by someone who does not work there but has a personal relationship with an employee, such as an abusive spouse or domestic partner.

Type 1, violence by criminals otherwise unconnected to the workplace, accounts for the vast majority—nearly 80 percent—of workplace homicides. In these incidents, the motive is usually theft, and in a great many cases, the criminal is carrying a gun or other weapon, increasing the likelihood that the victim will be killed or seriously wounded. This type of violence falls heavily on particular occupational groups whose jobs make them vulnerable: taxi drivers (the job carries by far the highest risk of being murdered), late-night retail or gas station clerks, and others who are on duty at night, who work in isolated locations or dangerous neighborhoods, and who carry or have access to cash.

Preventive strategies for Type 1 include an emphasis on physical security measures, special employer policies, and employee training. In fact, it is suggested that one of the reasons for the decline in workplace homicides since the early 1990s is due to the security measures put in place by businesses that may be vulnerable to this type of activity.

Because the outside criminal has no other contact with the workplace, the interpersonal aspects of violence prevention that apply to the other three categories are normally not relevant to Type 1 incidents. The response after a crime has occurred will involve conventional law enforcement procedures for investigating, finding, and arresting the suspect, and collecting evidence for prosecution. For that reason, even though Type 1 events represent a large share of workplace violence (homicides in particular) and should in no way be minimized, the rest of this paper will focus mainly on the remaining types.

Type 2 cases typically involve assaults on an employee by a customer, patient, or someone else receiving a service. In general, the violent acts occur as workers are performing their normal tasks. In some occupations, dealing with dangerous people is inherent in the job, as in the case of a police officer, correctional officer, security officer, or mental health worker. For other occupations, violent reactions by a customer or client are unpredictable, triggered by an argument, anger at the quality of service or denial of service, or some other precipitating event.

Employees experiencing the largest number of Type 2 assaults are those in healthcare occupations—nurses in particular, as well as doctors, and aides, particularly those who deal with psychiatric patients; members of emergency medical response teams; and hospital employees working in admissions, emergency rooms, and crisis or acute care units. Type 3 and Type 4 are incidents of violence by past or present employees and acts committed by domestic abusers or arising from other personal relationships that follow an employee into the workplace. Violence in these categories is no less or more dangerous or damaging than any other violent act. However, when the violence comes from an employee or someone close to an employee, there is much greater chance that some warning sign will have reached the employer in the form of observable behavior. That knowledge, along with the appropriate prevention programs, can at the very least mitigate the potential for violence or prevent it altogether.

Employers have a legal and ethical obligation to promote a work environment free from threats and violence and, in addition, can face economic loss as the result of violence in the form of lost work time, damaged employee morale and productivity, increased workers’ compensation payments, medical expenses, and possible lawsuits and liability costs. As more fully discussed in the sections below, employers’ important roles in violence prevention can include the following:

Employees have the right to expect a work environment that promotes safety from violence, threats, and harassment. They can actively contribute to preventive practices by doing the following:

In forming an effective workplace violence strategy, important principles include the following:

The components of a workplace violence prevention program can include the following:

No “profile” or litmus test exists to indicate whether an employee might become violent. Instead, it is important for employers and employees alike to remain alert to problematic behavior that, in combination, could point to possible violence. No one behavior in and of itself suggests a greater potential for violence, but all must be looked at in totality.

As well as being trained in how to respond to violent incidents, security personnel should be trained in techniques for handling threats or other confrontations without letting them escalate into violence. Security supervisors should have an up-to-date contact list for all employees, in case there is a need to advise workers of an emergency or distribute other information. There should also be a list of outside emergency contacts: police, rescue, medical, social service violence assessment and employee assistance professionals, etc. The security director should maintain regular liaison with local law enforcement agencies, familiarizing them with the company’s location and with evacuation and other emergency plans.

The floor plan and physical layout of a workplace should be reviewed and, if necessary, modified to improve employees’ safety. Aspects should include the following:

Adequate and clearly marked escape routes and a plan for emergency evacuation should be designed and practiced. The evacuation plan should include not only procedures for getting workers out of a building, office, or plant, but some method for those evacuated to assemble or report in so that it can be determined who is safe and who may still be missing. Evacuation plans should include provisions for workers with disabilities—for example, a way to make sure warnings are received by employees who may be hearing impaired and a system for safely evacuating anyone who uses a wheelchair.

Along with encouraging employees to report violence or threats, employers also have to inform them where to report and what to report. A designated office or person to whom complaints are directed, and perhaps a hotline number or suggestion box for employees who prefer to remain anonymous, can provide a concrete and clear venue for reporting.

To the extent that employees feel comfortable in reporting incidents to their immediate supervisors, the information may come through the normal management channels. However, having additional reporting channels can facilitate reporting where an employee finds it difficult to report through a supervisor. Whatever reporting system is adopted, publicizing it on bulletin boards, employee newsletters, notices distributed with paychecks, or other means, will help ensure that all workers know how to report any behavior they consider troubling.

To further facilitate the identification of threats, employees, supervisors, and manager can receive training to help them detect out-of-bounds behavior or other warning signs. Training can also help educate workers and supervisors on how to respond to someone who seems troubled or potentially dangerous and how to report that behavior to managers. Training can also include a very clear statement to all employees on what to do if they see or become aware of a weapon: In almost all circumstances, leave the location and call for help. Any training program should be sensitive to cultural assumptions and stereotypes and emphasize focusing on an individual’s manner, conduct, and behavior rather than ethnic or other group identity or a “profile” of a dangerous person.

A recurring problem in threat management is what to do when someone is evaluated as dangerous but has not committed any serious crime. In those cases, managers will need legal and, often, law enforcement advice. Workplace violence plans should advise managers where they can get guidance on an emergency basis, if necessary.