Beyond Zero Tolerance

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough

Zero Tolerance is a modern day example of the old adage, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.1 To some extent, zero tolerance policies in the workplace describes the American backlash to violence, unwanted behavior and actions in schools and professional sports leagues. In the early 1990s, politicians began to here the public outrage and discontent with violence, crime, drugs and other anti-social 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‟ got 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,” over-zealous approach to discipline that has been increasingly used in this country‟s criminal justice system. Thus, we saw 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 focused 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. 2 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 While corporations started implementing „zero tolerance‟ policies they quickly recognized some significant differences in implement a policy for a business

1. Erik Pistol, September 19, 2002, NewsWithViews.com 2. Zero Tolerance and Alternative Strategies: A Fact Sheet for Educators and Policymakers, National Association of School Psychologist, http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/zt_fs.html

1

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough

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 exist in the schools where their children attend which is where 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 where each situation would be judged based on the circumstances involved, the nature of the situation, the employees record, current policies, etc. Consequently, if an employee made a low level threat like the „radio incident‟ mentioned above employee perception was that with a „zero tolerance‟ policy the employee should be terminated. Since the employer is obligated to follow their human resource policies and apply the principles of „just cause, due process and non discrimination‟ 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.‟ It 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 interest 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

2

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough 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” it will not be tolerated and you will be punished. While that is fine, it ignores the fundamental principle of providing a safe work environment that is to prevent people from being injured in the first place. No Safety program worth it‟s 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 Workplace Violence Prevention 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 actual 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 it makes them appear to be „getting tough on violence‟ and it makes management feel good that they are taking a stance. The sad reality is that this over-zealous 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.

As Samuel Greengard stated in his article, „Zero Tolerance: Making It Work,‟ Workforce Magazine, “zero tolerance [became] 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.”

In contrast to „zero tolerance‟ the emerging approach is „zero incident‟ which focuses on reducing “at risk” behaviors and destructive organizational practices to attack the root causes of injuries so that the organization can intervene before incidents happen. An example of an actual workplace violence policy written using the „zero incident‟ approach is the following: “It is our intent to create a work environment where all employees are safe and secure from hazards. To ensure this happens we are placing a high priority on implementing practices and procedures that prevent work

3

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough violence, and strongly encourage the support of all employees in helping us to create an accident and hazard free environment.”

Imagine for moment that you are attending an Award‟s Banquet for Best in Class Workplace Violence Prevention Programs & Practices with two firms competing for top honors. The first firm has been recognized for having the „Best Crisis Response Plan for Reacting to Workplace Violence Incidents‟ (despite the fact that they had numerous incidents of employees getting injured and several employees that were killed) and the second firm has been recognized for having the „Best Prevention Plan for identifying At Risk Behaviors and Avoiding Workplace Violence Incidents‟ (they have a very low incident rate of violence and have not had any reportable injuries). Which firm would you vote for?

“At risk” behaviors and organizational practices refers to individual or organization based variables or contributing factors that when present create a heightened possibility of workplace violence occurring: Dangerous Intersection When the following three variables collide you have a very real and present danger for violence to occur.

1. A Triggering event, 2. A Violent prone individual, 3. A Violent prone organization A Triggering Event, The first variable, a triggering event is a wild card because what one person views as stressful another person takes in stride. While there are some events that we can clearly predict 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 stark reality is that the triggering event could also be something that has occurred outside of the workplace that you have no insight to or knowledge about. People do not check their problems at the door when they come to work. They bring all of their stressors, problems and issues with them.

A Violent Prone Individual The second of the three variables, a violent prone individual deals with the values and beliefs of an employee. This is an individual whom believes that violence is a legitimate way to resolve a problem and accepts that perpetrating violence against another person that opposes or offends them is okay. Unfortunately, despite organization deploying a wide array of pre-employment selection tools that screen applicants for potential problem areas we do not have a crystal ball

4

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough that can look into a persons‟ mind to identify their belief system. This means that the probability of your organization having employed individuals that have a propensity for violence is very real and you have no idea who they are.

A Violent Prone Organization The third variable, interesting enough, focuses on the setting or environment that the person is subjected too. An insensitive, uncaring, inflammatory, reactionary, work environment with a dysfunctional organizational culture, arbitrary management style, widespread unfair work practices, perceived unfair treatment of employees, questionable problem resolution processes, etc. can be breeding ground for escalating potential hostile situations. This type organization is generally referred to as a toxic workplace.

Research has indicated that there are a number of organizational variables which make an organization more prone to having violent outburst. The fact that organizational practices may be a contributing factor to a violent incident is a „dirty secret‟ that businesses do not want to admit.3 Zero Tolerance is Not Enough 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 that needs to evolve to the more progressive approach of „zero incidents‟ which focuses on elimination of „at risk‟ behaviors before an incident occurs.

To illustrate the difference in the two approaches see the following comparison: Zero Tolerance If you make a threat you will be reported If you get in a fight you will be terminated Abusive or intimidating behavior is not allowed Focus is on policy controlling behavior (rules driven)

Zero Incidents People know how to influence others without needing to make threats People know how to resolve conflict in positive ways Treating each other in a respectful manner is valued and rewarded Focus is on culture controlling behaviors (values driven)

The difference in the two approaches is that one focuses on prevention while the other focuses on reaction. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Common Factors to Violence Prone Organizations, National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., www.Workplaceviolence911.com

5

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough The essence of the „zero incident approach is to:  Detect - anticipate possible problematic situations and build plans to address; identify „at risk‟ behaviors for individuals and organizations and intervene before issues escalate.

A fundamental belief that we subscribe to is that if you can predict it, you can plan it. Since this belief is not a revolutionary concept, you may be wondering why don‟t more businesses 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. They believe that workplace violence only occurs at the Post Office or late night convenient stores and that it could not possibly occur in their workplace where everybody is professional, respectful of others and get along great.

- Prevent – reduce the number, intensity and duration of conflicts and issues; implement programmatic prevention efforts and early intervention.

Typical prevention efforts would include implementing a comprehensive workplace violence prevention policy, a threat management team, training supervisors and employees to identify „early warning signs,‟ how to defuse aggressive situations, appropriate ways to intervene to address potential violence, etc. Best practices include training employees to identify „early warnings,‟ importance of reporting threats, incidents and how to defuse conflict situations as well as focusing on creating a security conscious work environment.

- Protect – know how to defuse hostile situations; activate crisis response plan to address an incident, e.g., an active shooter situation; implement protocol with law enforcement.

Protect includes not just protecting employees, but also the organizations‟ resources by having well thought out and crafted plans to minimize disruptions to the organization‟s operations.

Implementation of a ‘Zero Incident’ Approach 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 eve 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 Ill, president of The Marlin Company who commissioned the Gallop study." A lot of people rationalize the

6

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough 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.

To summarize, many managers view workplace violence as the sole responsibility of a deranged, psychopathic or troubled employee while the truth is closer to the reality that an outbreak of violence in an organization is often time the result of chronic unresolved conflict which should have been noticed, properly managed and resolved. Despite many managers‟ best attempts to place the blame on individual behavior, the organization is not blameless. 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, lost of dignity, shaming, perceived lost of value and/or control which ultimately explodes into a desperate act.

Acts of workplace violence can be reduced and many of the cost associated with it can be avoided with forethought, strategic planning and progressive action.

Attending to workplace conflict is prudent and good business planning.

Today „Quality is King,‟ however, in the future, the competitive and leadership advantage may be strategic conflict management and it may be the separating factor in determining the firms that thrive in the global competitive marketplace.

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

About the Author W. Barry Nixon, SPHR, is the Executive Director, the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., a company focused on assisting organizations to effectively implement programs to prevent workplace violence.

He is the author of „Background Screening and Investigations: Managing Risk in the Hiring Process,‟ „Zero Tolerance is Not Enough: How to Really Implement Workplace Violence Prevention‟ as well as numerous articles. He is also the creator of the Ultimate Workplace Violence Policymaker Software which makes it easy for companies to create a comprehensive workplace violence prevention

7

Zero Tolerance is Not Enough policy in about an hour. He is an internationally recognized expert in workplace violence prevention and background screening and was recently recognized as being one of the Most Influential People in Security by Security Magazine. Mr. Nixon also teaches human resource management, organization development and management courses at several local universities. His Web Site is www.Workplaceviolence911.com and he can be reached via email at Barry@wvp911.com

8