THE PERCEPTION OFVIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACEAGAINST WOMEN Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Sarasota In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration THE PERCEPTION OFVIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACEAGAINST WOMEN The perception of the threat of violence in the workplace against women is of particular concern to companies due to the fact that homicide is the leading cause of fatal injury for female in the workplace. This study sought to determine if there were significant relationships among the perception of violence in the workplace against women in service-oriented work organizations and the respondent’s religious involvement, work classification, police involvement, marital status, and other independent variables. The descriptive research methodology was a survey instrument comprised of 30 questions, 25 closed-answered and 5 short-answered. It was distributed to service-oriented companies based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) that were identified in Orange County, New York. The survey was used in this study to assess the interaction between different independent variables and the sense of safety an individual feels within their workplace whether they were a victim or not. The level of significance (p <.>
05) supported the victims and other respondents’s sense of safety in the workplace when compared to their organization classification, marital status, and police involvement. The perception of the threat of violence in the workplace against women has a direct reflection on the work background and the characteristic make-up of an employee. Results of this survey were discussed in terms of the broader applicability to future issues of violence in the workplace. (c) Copyright 2000 by Mona Maria Johnson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A sincere expression of gratitude is offered to my committee, Dr. John D. Theodore, Dr.
Lakshmi Narayan, and Dr. Prosper M. Bernard, for their guidance and support throughout the completion of this endeavor. Their contribution to the scholarly development of this study was instrumental in its completion. Also worthy of thanks is Ms. Virginia Jones, Media Resource Associate, Vassar College, for her time, support, and expertise in statistics.
To my family and friends for their support, I am forever grateful. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Organizational Response Data 46 Table 2 Organization Violent Incident Response Data 47 Table 3 Victim’s Sense of a Safe Workplace 50 Table 4 Victims Who Informed Police and Safe Workplace 51 Table 5 Organization Classification and Victim 53 Table 6 Victim’s Organization Classification and Safe Workplace 54 Table 7 Respondent’s Marital Status and Knowledge of Attacker 58 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix One: Initial Survey Instrument 70 Appendix Two: Revised Survey Instrument 77 Appendix Three: Cover Letter 83 TABLE OF CONTENTSPageAbstract iii Copyright Page v Acknowledgements vi List of Tables vii List of Appendices viii CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM 1 The Problem 1 Problem Background 2 Literature Review 4 Purpose of the Study 5 Research Questions 6 Limitations/Delimitations 7 Definitions 9 Importance of the Study 12 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14 Background 14 Causes 15 Statistics 16 Weapons 17 Stress 19 Domestic Violence 20 Victims 21 Women and 24 Prevention 26 New York Workplace Violence 31 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 37 Research Design 37 Selection of Subjects 37 Instrumentation 37 Validity and Reliability 38 Informed Consent 39 Assumptions 39 Procedures 40 Data Processing and Analysis 41 Research Hypotheses 42 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 44 Restatement of the Purpose 44 Sample Responses 44 Hypothesis Testing 49 Summary of Findings 61 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62 Summary 62 Conclusions 64 Implications 67 Recommendations 69 References 85 CHAPTER ONE – THE PROBLEM The Problem In today’s society, violence is found everywhere. There isn’t a day that doesn’t go by that violence in a school, a restaurant, a workplace hasn’t occurred. In particular workplace violence has become an important issue in the nineties. Bosses, coworkers, spouses, and supervisors are being killed at work at an alarming rate. Stress, drugs, and layoffs are just a few of the factors that prompt such crisis events (Johnson & Indvik, 1994).
With the incidence of workplace violence rising, violent behaviors that are increasingly being manifested at work range from making telephone threats to outright murder. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that homicide is the second-most-common cause of unquantifiable human cost with workplace violence being very expensive for companies in terms of increased workers’ compensation rates, lawyers’ fees for defense against workers’ law suits, increased health care costs, and decreased productivity. The increase in on-the-job violence is also a major concern of managers and supervisors, since they are often tasked with helping the workforce deal with the incident and get back to work and address the threat of the perception of the threat of the violence that exists in the workplace. Although potentially violent employees are not easy to spot, managers and supervisors should be prepared to deal with employees who exhibit various behaviors (Filipczak, 1993). Problem Background A serious social problem is violence. Violence is more serious in the United States than in the rest of the industrialized world.
Existing knowledge reveals that nearly every year 1 million individuals become victims of violent crime while working or on duty in the United States. Today workplace homicide is the second leading cause of work-related deaths, behind only motor vehicle crashes, and accounts for about 17 percent of job fatalities. When one stops to consider that these statistics don’t count the deaths of innocent bystanders and non-employees, the situation appears to be even more serious. Moreover, it seems likely that many people are unaware of these numbers, despite the recent attention to workplace homicide in the media. The widespread job losses, layoffs, mergers, downsizing, and working in ‘lean and mean’ companies have placed a tremendous amount of pressure on individuals and their family structure. Workers in the nineties face a much smaller job market than workers did a decade ago.
After a layoff, a new job is harder to find. A lost job raises the speculation of losing one’s home, car, savings, family, or of jeopardizing a child’s education. Loss of a job also means a loss of identity and self-esteem (Ben simon, 1994). Combined with these pressures is the availability of guns, a population adept at using weapons, and a mass media that glamorizes weapons; the results are frequently explosive and usually tragic. Homicide took the lives of 1, 071 workers during 1994. Male workers comprised 83 percent of the victims of workplace homicide, but only 55 percent of the employed population of the United States.
Homicide was the leading cause of fatal injury for female workers, accounting for 40 percent of 172 of the fatal occupational injuries to women. A disproportionate share of workplace homicides incurred to blacks, Asians, and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics, compared with their share of total workplace fatalities and their employment share. Also immigrates to the United States had a high risk of homicide at work. This group comprised 25 percent of the workplace homicide victims and about 9 percent of all workers (Windau & Toscano, 1994). Each city has businesses, has employees, and has crime, and Orange County, New York, is no exception. Orange County, New York, is where people and businesses thrive and grow.
There are three main communities in Orange County, New York: Newburgh, Middletown, and Port Jervis. The county is nestled between the Delaware River on the west and the Catskills Mountains on the north, the Hudson River on the east, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the south. The residents can enjoy the best of country and city life in this area, and large metropolitan areas such as New York City, New York, Hartford, Connecticut, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are just minutes away. There are over 323, 000 individuals in Orange County with a breakdown of 163, 071 males and 160, 129 females in 1996 (Gaquin & Littman, 1999). Of this number, there is a labor force of over 155, 000. The population race composition of Orange County, New York, is 89.
9 percent white, 8. 1 percent black, . 3 percent American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, and 1. 7 percent Asians, and 8. 6 percent of this race composition are identified of Hispanic/ Spanish origin. There are over 7, 725 businesses in the county from country clubs to universities and everything in between.
For Orange County, there are over 200 businesses considered major employers and approximately half employ over 100 employees (Orange County Partnership, 1997). In 1996, there were 9, 809 cases of reported serious crime incidents in Orange County. Cases involving violent offenses which includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon comprised 3. 7 percent of the incidents, and an additional 28 percent were property crimes which includes burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.
With a total population of over 323, 000 for the entire county, these numbers translate into the fact that one of every 33 individuals of the populous were involved in some sort of reportable crime incident (Gaquin & Littman, 1999). The question of how many of these individuals was the victim of workplace violence was not available through the current data collection method, however there were occurrences. The causes of these crimes are difficult to formulate into an equation, but various behaviors and situations can assist in predicting and preparing for an incident. Whenever a criminal act occurs against an employee, it has a lasting effect on its victims and the community.
Literature Review Violence is increasing today in our workplace at an alarming rate, and it is becoming an issue of concern of the companies, managers, and employees. Each year over 1 million individuals become victims of violent crime while working or on duty. These victimization’s account for 15 percent of the over 6 1/2 million acts of violence experienced by U. S. residents age 12 or older. Crime victimization’s occurring in the workplace cost over half a million employees 1, 751, 100 days of work each year, an average of 3.
5 days per crime. This missed work resulted in over $55 million in lost wages annually. Among people victimized while working, men were more likely than women to experience a violent crime. Over 30 percent of victims who were working during a violent victimization faced armed offenders and almost a third of these offenders had a handgun (U. S. Dept.
of Justice, 1994). Sixteen percent of violent victimization’s, which occurred while the victim was working, resulted in physical injuries with 10 percent of these injuries requiring medical care. Another factor that needs to be reviewed is that 6 out of 10 incidents of workplace violence occurred in private companies. Although men who were victimized while working were more likely to be attacked by a stranger, women were more likely to be attacked by someone known to them. There were 5 percent of the women victimized at work that were attacked by a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend.
However over half of all victimization’s sustained at work were not reported to police. When individuals were asked why they did not report, 40 percent said they believed the incident to be a minor or a private matter. An additional 27 percent did not report to police because they reported the victimization to another official, such as a company security guard (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1993).
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the following issues: 1. ) Actions the victims took informing authorities of the incident whether through the judicial systems or law enforcement or through the company, and the company’s response. 2. ) Different races and their perception of the threat of violence in the workplace.
3. ) Relationship between the individual and the attacker of the violent acts committed against the victim. 4. ) Common factors identified among individuals that were attacked and those that were not attacked in relation to their race, their family interaction, and their religious affiliation.
5. ) Other factors that will be explored will include: alcohol and substance abuse and work climate such as private, governmental, or public and the weapon used during the threat or attack. The work organization has a responsibility to each employee to provide a safe, positive atmosphere, which promotes the growth and productivity of every individual, free from violence and the perception of the threat of violence. The above concerns will assist in identifying areas that need additional development in creating a safer and more receptive work environment to deal with the threat of violence in the workplace. Research Questions In order to determine the effectiveness of creating a work environment safe from the perception of threats of violence to managers, supervisors, and employees, the following questions will be pursued through the survey: 1. ) What is the relationship between how workers perceive the threat of violence in the workplace and their notification to the proper authorities for corrective action and the company’s response? 2.
) What is the relationship between the perception of threats of violence in the workplace and workers of different races? 3. ) What is the relationship between the marital status of the individual and the relationship to the attacker of the violent acts committed against them? 4. ) What is the relationship between the respondents who were regularly involved with religious activities and those that experienced violence at the workplace? 5. ) Was the offender (s) known to be on drugs or alcohol at the time of the attack and the weapon used during the attack? Limitations/Delimitations The limitations of this study will appear with regard to the type or classifications of the industries or companies being targeted for surveying. All industries or companies involved in this study will be selected based on the total number of employees. Also the type of industry that the company is involved with will be determined by the researcher as being service oriented as based upon the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) (D&B, Inc.
, 1998) code listing. This will limit the selection of the group of industries or companies that will be studied. The researcher chose industries or companies, which were viewed as being service oriented. The criteria used to chose these industries or companies meet the following criteria: 1. Located in Orange County, New York. 2.
Service-oriented businesses. 3. Have at least 100 employees. 4.
Study used a survey instrument developed by the researcher rather than a combination of surveys, personal interviews, and direct observation. 5. Study was completed by the researcher working independently. Applying the above criteria resulted in a set of industries that will be the basis of this study.
The plan is to conduct a study of these industries or companies as identified by the researcher as being service oriented. The survey will be given to the administrator for the industry or company. These officials would be most knowledgeable concerning individuals available to complete the survey. The survey will be the 25 closed-answer format of survey questions and 5 short- answer questions, which will limit the responses to quantifiable perceptions of violence in the workplace against women. This will eliminate opportunities for individuals completing the survey to provide other information generally offered in open-ended formats.
This format will produce a more efficient data analysis. All the industries or companies involved in this study are located in the Orange County, New York, area. Generalizations of the findings to other industries or companies in other geographical settings may be limited. The descriptive survey research method was selected as the research methodology because it permits a global understanding of the setting within which the participating industries or companies operate. The data collected cannot be generalized to fit the needs of all industries and companies. But the results of the study may make chief administrators of the industries and companies aware of the need for the implementation of violence awareness programs, if not already in place, or how to enhance an existing program.
Although the information from the study might be used in terms of what has been successful, it cannot serve as a model for employee violence awareness programs in all industries or companies. The foundation for this research was based on current information available on the subject of violent in the workplace against women. The information on this subject is limited due to the newness of this growing concern. However without a doubt the subject of the threat of violence in the workplace will be investigated more intensely with the rising number of violent incidents occurring in today’s society. Definitions The following terms will be of significance for purposes of this study: ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) -This is a ratio of observed differences / error term and is used to test the hypotheses. This ratio, called the F-ratio, employs the variance (a squared) of group means as a measure of observed differences among groups.
Categorical Variables-A variable that can take on a limited number of values. Causal Comparative Factors-Correlational designs where comparisons among existing groups attempt to find evidence that it is the treatment that is different in the various groups which causes any differences in the outcomes. This research seeks to determine the relationships among two or more variables. Closed-Form Question-A question on a questionnaire for which a limited number of possible responses are specified in advance.
Content Validity-It refers to the degree to which the content of a test matches some objective criterion. Correlation-The degree to which two variables tend to vary in the same direction (positive correlation) or in opposite direction (negative correlation). Data-Information systematically collected in research. Data are usually information about individuals or groups. Degree of Freedom (DF) -The number of degrees of freedom refers to the number of observations free to vary around a constant parameter. Dependent Variable-The predicted variable is the dependent variable.
This is the variable that is being influenced. An outcome variable hypothesized to be affected by one or more causes (independent variables). F-Value-The mean square within groups is the error term. The end product is the analysis-of-variance procedure. Frequency Distribution-A systematic arrangement of individual measures from lowest to highest is a frequency distribution. Hypothesis-A statement concerning supposed relationships among variables on which research will address.
Independent Variable-This is the variable that is the predictor of the outcome. The influencing variable on the outcome is the independent variable. A variable (such a condition) hypothesized to cause one or more outcomes (dependent variables). Level of Significance-It is the probability level, which is established to accept or reject the null hypothesis (p <.>
Linear relationship-A positive or negative correlational relationship between two variables is the same at every value of the variables. Mean-Central tendency where the sum of all the values in a distribution is divided by the number of cases is the mean. Nonparametric Statistic-Statistics designed for use with distributions that do not meet the assumptions required for use of parametric statistics. Null Hypothesis-A hypothesis that two or more variables are not related, or that the means of two or more treatment groups on some variable are not different. Perception-An individual’s understanding, awareness through one’s senses. Orange County, New York-Orange County, New York, is located approximately 75 miles north of New York City, New York, up the Hudson River.
Located in the Catskills Mountain region of the state, there is an abundance of business opportunities. The county has approximately 816 acres of land, with a work force of 323, 000 and 7, 725 businesses. Questionnaire-A set of written questions usually consisting of one or more scales, to which respondents make written responses such as short-answer. Reliability-The consistency of a measure across subjects or a scale.
Reliability may also refer to the consistency of a difference or a relationship between variables. Sample-A group of subjects chosen from a larger group to which research findings are assumed to apply (Slavin, 1992). Service-Oriented Industry or Company-The service-oriented industries or companies will be organizations that support the public. This area could include occupations such as lodging, health services, social services, educational services, galleries and gardens, business services, amusement and recreation services, and other related service-oriented businesses. Standard Deviation-A statistic indicating the degree of dispersion or scatter of a set of numbers. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.
Standard Error-A statistic indicating the degree of potential error with which a sample mean might estimate a population mean. Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) -The Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) code is a simple and effective coding system that is used to gather and classify information on U. S. Businesses. There are 10 major categories in the SIC system. Sum of Squares (SS) -The part of the deviation between the group means and the overall mean that is due to neither row differences nor column differences is sum of squares.
Workplace climate-The social, emotional and psychological environment within which employees and supervisors function; the general atmosphere and / or attitude within the workplace. Workplace violence-Incidents within the service industry or company caused by any of the following: alcohol and substance abuse, workplace climate, personnel safety issues, and other related issues. Importance of the Study The importance of this study is to identify external and internal factors that contribute to the perception of violence and the threat of violence in a workplace environment by the employees. The results could assist the managers, supervisors, and employees in addressing the need to reduce the violence in the workplace environment and to provide an environment that is more conducive towards productivity and efficiency through extra curriculum activities and counseling services.
This study is anticipated to contribute to the following issues associated with violence in the workplace: 1. ) Provide an assessment of how women feel about notification to proper authorities on the threat of violence in the workplace. 2. ) Provide factors that can be enhanced in the workplace to reduce violence in the workplace. 3.
) Provide factors that can be contributors to violence in the workplace due to family and religious relationships. 4. ) Provide a basis for future research in the area of violence in the workplace and employee protection and awareness. 5. ) Provide a basis for future research in the area of management awareness and training for signs of impending violence in the workplace. CHAPTER TWO – REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREBackgroundThe news today is full of reports on killings whether on the streets by drive-by shootings or gang violence, at restaurants on innocent patrons, at postal offices by disgruntle employees, or at schools by children on children or adults.
Violence is also increasing today in our workplace, and it is becoming an issue of concern by employers and employees. One area of particular interest to companies and their female employees is violence in the workplace against women. Within this area, numerous articles were read by the researcher, numerous organizations contacted, and various labor personnel officials were interviewed to collect information on this subject. During the initial research surrounding violence in the workplace against women, there were numerous subjects investigated that influenced violent acts to occur in the workplace. Areas such as alcohol and substance abuse, stress, downsizing, domestic violence, handguns, prevalent of workplace violence, legislation being generated, union involvement, implementation of preventative programs, and other related articles were investigated. With the incidence of workplace violence rising, violent behaviors that are increasingly being manifested at work range from making telephone threats to murder (Filipczak, 1993).
Retaliation is one way workers have of coping with what they see as an unfair situation. A violent incident may be a reaction to the perpetrator’s feeling that an unwritten, but important psychological contract has been broken by management or coworkers (Allerton, 1996). Causes There are a variety of causes for violence in the workplace. Some of the factors, which may combine to cause violent behavior in a person, can be the emotional and mental stability of an individual. This is the prime ingredient that is present in an individual before a violent act can occur. Mental or emotional illnesses can be post traumatic stress syndrome, manic depression, or other chemical imbalances and personality disorders.
Another factor is a negative financial, personal or work-related circumstance that requires sound coping skills. Also working knowledge of weapons and the ability to obtain them is a growing concern. A key ingredient that is lacking is a support system to help an individual work though issues that is creating a stressful work and personal environment. Additionally the absence of an effective organizational response to deal effectively with potentially violent employees is usually lacking within an organization. An effective support program can reduce the risk of a tragic event occurring. However we do live in a violent society and a ‘copy cat’ mentality does exist which can promote violence in the workplace (Merrill, 1997).
There appears not to be an exact science as to what triggers violence in the workplace. Anyone can become violent ‘if pushed too far.’ The potentially violent worker is one who has trouble relating to people, a sense of moral righteousness; erratic work patterns, displays unwarranted anger or irritability, or has low self-esteem. Increased violence can also be caused by the work climate. If the employees of an organization are treated as though they are machines, if the goals are unreasonable or unachievable and stress is pervasive, if the organization is controlled by an overbearing power figure, the workplace can become a very toxic environment, and the chance for violence in the workplace is much greater (Darr, 1995). The incidence of violence in the workplace prior to the 1990 s was rare and isolated. But since that time, there has been a three-fold increase in violent acts in the workplace based on a combination of various factors and circumstances in an individual’s life that pushes them to commit violent crimes.
Statistics Each year over 1 million individuals become victims of violent crime while working or on duty. These victimization’s account for 15 percent of the over 6 1/2 million acts of violence experienced by U. S. residents age 12 or older according to the Department of Justice. However over half of all victimization’s sustained at work were not reported to police and were handled by the company internally. When individuals were asked why they did not have the incident reported to the police, 40 percent said they believed the incident to be minor or a private matter.
An additional 27 percent did not contact the police because they reported the victimization to another official, such as a company security guard. Another factor is that 6 out of 10 incidents of workplace violence occurred in private companies (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1993). Accurate assessment of workplace violence is difficult to ascertain.
Imprecise and limited definitions, non-standardized record keeping and unwillingness to report acts of violence due to fears of reprisal or appearances of inadequacy have led to serious underestimates and distortions of the true extent of violence in our workplaces. Crime victimization’s occurring in the workplace cost about half a million employees’ 1, 751, 100 days of work each year, an average of 3. 5 days per crime. This missed work resulted in over $55 million in lost wages annually (U. S.
Dept of Justice, 1994). Among people victimized while working, men had a greater possibility than women to experience a violent crime. Over 30 percent of victims who were working during a violent victimization faced armed offenders and almost a third of these offenders had a handgun. Murder was the second highest cause of workplace death, following only motor vehicle, as reported by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health statistics. Approximately 20 percent of these deaths involved the use of a handgun with 80 percent being killed by various instruments such as knives, clubs, and other weapons (Alexander & Fowles, 1996). Weapons Each year over 635, 000 individuals in the United States will face an offender armed with a handgun.
For the most part, 87 percent of the nonfatal crimes involving handguns, the offender did not fire the weapon but used it to intimidate according to reports gathered by the National Crime Survey of victims. While 10 percent of the nonfatal attacks, the victims reported that the offender fired the gun but missed, and 3 percent were wounded in crimes involving handguns. However these criminals used a handgun to kill an average of 9, 200 people per year and to wound over 15, 000 with approximately 76, 000 victims a year injured in other ways than by being shot such as rocks, bottles, clubs, pipes, and martial arts weapons (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1990).
Twenty-nine states now allow licensed individuals to carry a handgun. Additionally many of these states have implemented laws that allow concealed weapons. These laws have heightened employers’ awareness of the possibility of weapons in the workplace and the risks posed by employees, patrons, and visitors lawfully bringing concealed weapons onto business premises. With homicide as the second leading cause of death in the workplace nationwide, businesses are faced with the challenge of how to maintain a safe workplace in light of the proliferation of laws permitting individuals to carry concealed handguns. It can be recognized that these laws can only add to the risk of violence in the workplace, and that employers have to respond according by implementing workplace safety programs that specifically address the problem posed by weapons in the workplace. The implementation and enforcement of a no weapons policy is becoming a prominent feature in many workplace safety programs.
There are primarily three different types of no weapons policies. The first type of no weapon policy prohibits anyone who enters the business premises, including employees, patrons, vendors and visitors, from carrying a weapon. This is commonly called the “criminal trespass” approach, since under this policy and the laws in many states, bringing a weapon onto the business premises amounts to unlawful trespass. The second policy is an ’employees only’ policy, applicable only to employees. And the third type of policy is commonly referred to as the ‘all license holders allowed’ approach. This policy allows only individuals licensed to carry a concealed handgun onto the business premises (Mathias on & Kruger, 1996).
However if an employer adopts any or all of these policies, the employer needs to consult with an attorney so not to encounter legal problems with the pertinent state. Stress Workplace violence has become an important issue in the nineties. Bosses, coworkers, spouses, and supervisors are being killed at work. A few factors that prompt such crisis events include stress, drugs, alcohol, and layoffs (Johnson & Indvik, 1994). It was determined that job-related stress brought on due to company downsizing or reorganizing can also be translated into various behavioral actions by employees such as drinking and taking drugs. Due to substance abuse, these employees have difficulty working effectively with others and react violently under stress (Cranwell-Ward, 1995).
The workplace has been identified as the greatest single source of stress in an individual’s life based on surveys conducted. Notably causes of such stress ranged from the anxieties produced by corporate downsizing to factors that result in physical disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome. Stress stems from the opportunities or impositions of new technologies being brought into a company of which are taking a toll among workers in various ways. These pressures, especially combined with family anxieties such as financial, emotional, generational, social, and health problems, make for a very stressful situation at work and at home (Marino, 1997). Additionally stress can simply result from the individual employee not feeling appreciated on the job or being overwhelmed by family obligations. According to the Westchester County Business Journal, the most frequently cited motivations by the attackers for violence in the workplace were personality conflicts (62 percent), work-related stress (27 percent), family or marital problems (27 percent), emotional problems or mental illnesses (25 percent), firings (16 percent), and drug or alcohol abuse (16 percent) (Watson, 1996).
The Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor in 1994 conducted a landmark survey of how working women in America felt about their jobs. More than a quarter of a million women stated that stress ranked as the number one problem. Based on this information, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is concerned that stress on the job can breed violence, even homicide. Additionally when violence does occur or is even a potential threat, stress increases (Dear, 1995).
Domestic Violence Women in the workplace are increasingly at risk because domestic violence is frequently spilling over to the job site. Although men who were victimized while working had a greater possibility of being attacked by a stranger, women were more likely to be attacked by someone known to them. A husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend attacked 20 percent of the women victimized at work. While the other 80 percent were attacked by fellow workers, roommates either male or female, or strangers (Watson, 1996). Trouble at home frequently follows an employee to work. The vast majority of adult domestic violence victims are women targeted by men, although violence against women can also occur between housemates, relatives or same-sex partners.
More than 40 percent of all women murdered did die at the hands of an intimate friend or partner, male or female. Also women are more likely than men to be attacked at work by someone they know according to the U. S. Department of Justice (‘Trouble at Home,’ 1996). An incidence of domestic violence in the U. S.
according to the Family Violence Prevention Fund occurs against a woman every nine seconds. Companies also are affected by domestic violence costing between $3 billion and $5 billion annually due to worker absenteeism, increased health care costs, lateness, higher turnover and lower productivity. Moreover, murder is the leading cause of on-the-job death among employed women. This attributes to twenty percent of women killed on the job being murdered by a husband or former male partner. Ninety-six percent of employed battered women experience problems at work due to the abuse (Watson, 1996). Estimates of domestic violence incidents are higher among low-income women.
Per a 1996 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, women living in households with annual incomes below $10, 000 are four times more likely to be violently attacked, usually by intimates. Of the male defendants in spousal homicide cases, over half were separated from their victims at the time of the incident. Additionally divorced and separated women reported being physically abused 14 times as often as women living with their partners (Pearson & Griswold, 1997). Domestic violence is a social challenge that does not disappear when a woman leaves their homes and enters their workplace. The individual that is battering the women may show up at the workplace because they are barred from going to the victim’s home. The phone number and address of a victim can be easily changed, but not necessarily their workplace (Hyman & Simmons, 1996).
Victims Of the victims of violent crime, homicide took the lives of 1, 071 workers during 1994 per the U. S. Department of Justice with 56 percent of the victims working in retailing or other service industries (‘Violence in the workplace,’ 1996). Male workers comprised 83 percent of the victims of workplace homicide with males comprising only 55 percent of the employed population of the United States. Homicide was also the leading cause of fatal injury for female workers, accounting for 40 percent of the fatal occupational injuries to women.
Blacks, Asians, and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics incurred a disproportionate share of total workplace fatalities. Immigrates to the United States also had a high risk of homicide at work, and this group comprised 25 percent of the workplace homicide victims and about 9 percent of all workers (Windau & Toscano, 1994). Violent acts seem also to target workers 65 years of age and older than younger workers. Perhaps this is due to a number of factors including a decreased ability to survive injury or the perception that older workers are ‘softer’ targets (McMurry, 1996). Like other occupational fatalities, victims of workplace homicide were primarily in the 25 to 54 age range. However, approximately three out of every ten deaths of 13 and 17-year-old workers were due to workplace homicide.
Many of those killed by homicide at work were either self-employed or working in the family business. These workers accounted for 24 percent of the 1, 004 worker homicides and about 20 percent of all work fatalities in 1993, and they comprise about 9 percent of the employment total. While homicides at work occurred in a wide variety of occupations, several specific occupations stood out. During 1994 fifty or more homicides included supervisors and proprietors in sales occupations, taxicab drivers and chauffeurs, cashiers, managers of food and lodging establishments, food preparation and service occupations, police and detectives, and prison guards (Causey, 1998). Nearly half of the homicides occurring at work were in retail trade, primarily in food stores, including convenience stores, restaurants, drinking establishments, and gasoline service stations.
One sixth of the homicides occurred in service-related industries, including guard and armored car services, hotels and motels, and health and educational services. Taxicab companies and police protections were other industries affected by homicides. Workplace homicide was primarily an urban problem. Four fifths of the homicides occurred in metropolitan areas, compared with three fifths of total occupational injury fatalities. The majority, over 80 percent, of homicide victims died as a result of gunshot wounds. Other homicides resulted from stabbing, beating, strangulation, fire, and being struck by objects.
While workplace homicides due to disputes between coworkers, clients, or spouses usually make national news, the majority of homicides that occur at work are committed during a robbery or robbery attempt. Robberies frequently occurred while workers were locking up at night or making money drops or pick-ups. Workplace homicides typically occurred at night, between 7 p. m. and 2 a.
m. A number of robberies occurred while workers were delivering food such as a pizza, and a handful of robbery-related homicides were committed by coworkers or former coworkers. A small number of workers were mugged and murdered while traveling to work, or while leaving the work premises. Almost 90 homicides occurring at work resulted from some type of business-related confrontation. About half of these disputes were with a coworker or former coworker.
Other disputes involved customers of retail stores, restaurants, and bars, and various types of clients, such as tenants, patients, and students. Many of these homicides were committed after the worker was fired or the customer or tenant was asked to vacate the premises. Traffic disputes and disputes with relatives also resulted in a number of worker homicides. Confrontations with personal acquaintances resulted in at least 39 workplace homicides.
Relatives killed twenty-four workers with 19 being husbands or ex-husbands. Boyfriends or ex-boyfriends killed an additional seven women. In total, one sixth of the workplace homicides to women were committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend (Windau & Toscano, 1994). Generally, there are two types of occupational violent crimes. One kind is externally generated or perpetrated by a stranger or a customer on an employee. The other kind is internally generated or perpetrated by an employee on another employee or employer.
Externally generated violent crime is more prevalent, but internally generated violence appears to be increasing at a faster rate. Women and Workplace Violence Murder is the number one cause of death for women in the workplace, and it is the third cause of death for men. Women face a much greater danger from violent attacks at work than men do, with nurses and teachers among those most at risk. Additionally women in the social services face the highest risk of violence at work as concluded by the Center for Women in Government at the State University of New York at Albany. Workplace assaults were serious enough to warrant time off from work for 58 out of every 100, 000 women injured in 1993. Female government employees were several times more likely to be attacked than private sector employees were.
Also the rate of nonfatal assaults against black women at work is twice the rate for white women. The most dangerous jobs for women were listed as nurse’s aides, nurses, police officer, and secondary school teacher. Women most likely to be killed on the job were food service workers, hotel workers, cashiers, and taxi drivers (Weiss, 1996). Data on workplace violence against women other than white has some very alarming figures. The rate of non-fatal assault against black women is 78 percent higher than against white women, and Asian and blacks have the highest workplace homicide rates among women. Additional research is needed to determine why women other than white are more often targets of workplace violence, possible explanations include the concentration of jobs in high crime areas; more societal tolerance for violence against people of other races than white; concentration of women of color in the most dangerous jobs within occupational categories; and a greater proportion of minority women working in Government (Ep pard, 1996).
The kinds of violence women experience often seem to be quite different from the threats men face. There are definitely far more women than men who are the targets of rapists and abusive mates. Women are stalked, harassed and threatened, but law enforcement at times seems to the victims of violent crime unable or unwilling to deal with these incidents due to way that laws are written or due to other crimes being committed. The police have legal authority to make an arrest only if they witnessed the incident or if they have obtained an arrest warrant from a judge. Where police can make arrests on their own authority, they are often afraid the arrest will backfire, producing more violence rather than less.
Usually they decide not to arrest out of fear that the offender will return to the victim and inflict even more harm. Domestic violence has no boundaries; it can happen to any female irrelevant of her race, religion, employment, or status. It is probably one of the most under-reported crime in the nation. Reasons why arrests in domestic violence cases are not more common, police cite that the frequent change of heart victims have the day after the assault and their refusal to cooperate with a criminal prosecution.
An argument by police is that it is pointless to make an arrest if there will be no court-imposed punishment to produce a deterrent effect, and that there cannot be court-imposed punishment unless the victim cooperates (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1986).
Due to the fact the crime is so under-reported, society has been slow to respond to the needs of abused women. The medical field has been slow to recognize the needs of battered women. And law enforcement is often slow to respond. Violence in the workplace against women is a serious threat. Women are literally on the first line of defense because of the kinds of job women often hold such as secretaries, receptionists, and clerks.
Women are usually the first company representative that an individual carrying a gun will encounter. To compound the problem, women are in greater danger because they are often targets of spurned lovers or obsessed men. All these situations coupled with a declining economy, higher stress levels, easy access to guns, and media coverage such as television and newspapers contribute to the rise of violence at the workplace against women (Alpert, 1994). Prevention Violence is one of the most troubling issues facing American society today. The workplace is not immune to the effects of violence. Indeed, statistics indicate that violence has become a fundamental organizational problem (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Grew, 1996).
Ample evidence indicates that increased concerns about personal safety, perceptions of threats and feelings of alienation are influenced as much by indirect exposure as by personal encounter with violence (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1996). With these types of statistics and implications, companies are increasingly being held liable by the courts for safety, health, and behavioral issues of employees in their workplace. While workplace violence can certainly take its toll in pain, suffering, stress, and lost productivity, employers are realizing the monetary obligations due to workplace violence.
Employers have a general duty to ‘furnish to each employee, employment and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause, death or serious harm to the employee’ under federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (Sandler, 1994). The OSHA clearly states employers are legally required to provide a safe workplace. Even if there is not any immediate threat of violence, it is essential to recognize that danger and liability, and to plan for it (Holyoke, 1997). Under the theory of ‘respondent superior,’ an employer is liable for any actions committed by its employees within the scope of their employment. That is to say the employer can be held liable even if they did nothing wrong.
The employer is liable for actions of the employee when the employee is working, even if the employee is acting contrary to company policy (Black, 1990). An employer may also be liable for failing to take adequate safety and security measures after they have been notified of a potential danger. A property owner may be liable for a third party assault occurring on the premises if the assault was foreseeable under the circumstances, and the company did not provide adequate security measures. Prevention and protection are good guides for business leaders to use to approach this growing concern in the workplace.
Protecting their company’s image, reputation, products, and employees by establishing proper prevention programs is a healthy attitude to take. Violence in the workplace has direct and indirect costs to businesses. Property damage and injured employees are obvious and measurable. However the costs associated with lost productivity, litigation expense and decreased morale is not as obvious. The extent of the cost to business of lost productivity that follows a violent act has not been completely captured. Immediately after an incident has occurred within a business, losses in productivity will increase up to 80 percent for several weeks in the area of the crime.
These losses are attributed to: the non-availability of the killed or injured worker; work interruptions caused by police and internal security investigations; damage to the facility; time lost by surviving employees discussing the incident and details leading up to it; decreased efficiency and productivity due to post-traumatic stress; and time spent by employees in counseling sessions. More subtly, violence in the workplace also impacts the business in the areas of employee turnover and employee morale. The businesses that reported to the survey on violence in the workplace had experienced a dramatic increase in the employee turnover and an equally dramatic drop in employee morale. Some of the reasons cited for these changes were that most individuals readily accepting responsibility for their own safety and security at home. However, almost all employees felt that the employers had the responsibility of providing a safe work environment, not that the government was responsible (‘Workplace,’ 1995). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has now become the governing body on workplace violence.
OSHA has placed the responsibility on the company owners to address the violence problem head-on. It appears that when the government can not find a way to solve a problem for society as a whole, then business gets the job of addressing the problem. But even business can not eliminate violence, just contain it. Protecting employees and limiting liability is a good idea even if it was not legislated. The business can start making the workplace safer by improving its employee selection methods for positions within the organization.
Personnel managers should make the most of the employment interviews by asking questions, which would allow assessment of the prospective employee’s behavior. Learn to recognize undesirable personality traits. Check all work history, military, credit and criminal histories. Check their driving records. If it has Driving While Intoxicated (DWI’s), careless and imprudent (C&I’s) driving, blood alcohol contact (BAC’s), or excessive entries, ask for explanations.
This may indicate substance abuse or emotional problems of some type. Perform a pre-employment drug screen and a psychological screen if possible. Do a complete pre-employment background check. Recognize any unexplained or suspicious gaps in employment history, the availability of references or any facts they omit that surface during the reference checks. It is also important to remember that even in the most carefully screened, least ‘toxic’ workplace may experience a violent act. There may be a ‘ticking bomb’, a violence-prone individual, who for some reason snaps despite all precautions.
There is not an exact science as to what makes an individual go ballistic and threaten the well being of others, as well as themselves. However there are practices, processes, and security devices that can be implemented to reduce the exposure of individuals within the workplace to violent acts. Workplace violence could possibly be solved by carefully screening job applicants and developing profiles of persons with the potential to become violent. But the employers must be aware of liability issues concerning screening of applicants for criminal records. Screening as a method of preventing workplace violence may conflict with state policies encouraging rehabilitation and re-employment for ex-offenders.
Also some federal courts interpret title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as prohibiting employment decisions based on an applicant’s criminal record because people may be falsely arrested for a crime they did not commit. Because employers may be sued for discriminating against job applicants with criminal histories, and there is no guarantee that screening can prevent workplace violence by employees who have no prior criminal record, some employers are establishing profiles to identify potentially violent employees. But then again, profiling also has three practical and legal reasons for limiting its use: First, most predictions of violence are likely to be wrong. Second, the profile of a person likely to commit murder differs from the profile of one who stalks, rapes, or commits other crimes. Third, employers run the risk of violating an employee’s civil rights if they take adverse actions based on a profile (Di Lorenzo & Carroll, 1995).
But greater results can be obtained by improving security procedures and installing devices to protect employees form robbers, irate customers, family, and acquaintances and dealing with existing situations internally. The smart business owners can limit their liability by taking steps toward protecting their facilities and employees through tighter security measures. Some measures may seem drastic, but in the long run, these measures will be a life saving or injury saving for the employee and the company. The installation of bullet proof glass, closed-circuit television cameras to monitor common use areas, hidden panic buttons, beepers for human resources and security personnel, and having security personnel on the premise before and after hours for employees working non-standard hours are only a few of the security measures being taken by companies to protect and prevent violence in the workplace for both males and females. However even these security measures have their limitations when trying to prevent violence in an area where it is virtually impossible to stop potentially violent actions such as in a retail store or eating establishment.
Other security practices that can be employed are when selecting a person for a position through questions being specifically asked, background checks, conducting psychological screening tests, and interviews which may elicit responses from candidates, as well as, pre-employment drug tests screening methods (Palmer, 1995). But none of these techniques offer assurances that an individual won’t have a breaking point and go ‘postal’ on you. But a zero-tolerance policy toward violence within the organization is the best policy to implement. Workers need to understand that policy and their responsibility to report threatening situations. With this information, supervisors need to be trained as to how to step in and confront the problem, referring the troubled worker to necessary professional help. Education is the key factor in striving to reduce violence in the workplace (Palmer, 1995).
New York Workplace Violence Investigating violence in the workplace within the State of New York, an interview was conducted by the researcher with Mr. David Ruppert, Safety and Health Program Manager, Department of Labor. Mr. Ruppert expressed concern over the growing number of violent acts committed in the workplace stating that workplace violence is a rapidly growing occupational hazard, causing death, injury and trauma to thousands of workers in New York State (NYS) each year. In 1992, 148 workers in were murdered on-the-job, and in 1993, 160 were murdered. Over 80 percent of these NYS workplace homicides occurred in New York City (NYC).
Although only 3 percent of the total United States workforce works in NYC, 12 percent of the nation’s workplace homicides occurred here. During 1992 and 1993, workplace homicide was the third leading cause of traumatic occupational death in the State of New York not including NYC and the leading cause of occupational death in NYC. More than 11, 000 workers in NYS were injured as a result of assault on-the-job in 1992, and these workplace injuries were estimated to have cost $415 million. As indicated earlier, jobs with the highest risk of violence include those, which involve handling money, working alone and directly providing security, health care and other human services. Of the workplace murders, the majority were committed by assailants whose motives were robbery or other crimes, and who had no prior relationship to the victims (‘Violence in the Workplace: The New York Experience,’ 1995). In NYC, the number of people who were murdered at work tripled in 1991 from 1989, and homicide represented two-thirds of all occupational fatalities that year (Red burn, 1993).
And while NYC’s overall murder rate was only one third that of Washington, D. C.’s , in NYC people died on the job at more than twice the rate of Washington. The NYS Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is very instrumental in its role in the prevention of traumatic events and the provision of post-intervention services for employees and the organizations for which they work. Their post trauma response is a proactive approach, usually initiated by agency administration for a group of individuals who are defined by their involvement in the event. This proactive approach involves one or a combination of interventions, which meet the psychological and emotional needs of individuals involved in, or adversely affected by trauma. There are several interventions which could include group sessions to lessen emotional impact, conducted by a mental health professional, specifically trained in trauma response, individual sessions with a metal health professional to lessen the emotional impact, assessment and referral for community based-services.
For an NYS employee, EAP’s are on-site and available to administration providing necessary linkages between the agency and employees and the services necessary to properly intervene when a traumatic event occurs. Additionally EAP does follow-up services subsequent to the post-trauma intervention. Preventive effort, such as awareness programs, educational seminars, and utilizing local experts, are coordinated through and supported by local EAP’s (‘New York State Employee Assistance Program,’ 1994). The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.
(CSEA), Local 1000, for NYS have produced several pamphlets on security in the workplace. Ms. Wendy Hard is the CSEA representative in Albany, NY. From this office, information is provided outlining measures to be taken to ensure safety in the workplace.
CSEA believes that State Public Employees Safety and Health Act (PUSH) safety standards in the workplace needs to be established to prevent a further increase in the number of violent acts in the workplace. The pamphlet that was developed by CSEA addresses employer in-house security procedures that are ‘common sense’ procedures do not cost money in most cases and can be put into use immediately. Examples are to review the placement of the desk in the employee’s office for exit purposes, have clients sign in with a time and person to visit, have employees speak to a customer over a counter top, as well as, develop discrete distress codes. Training is discussed as the most effective means to increase personal security. Structural modifications and intrusion systems are also presented as a means of reducing violence acts being committed in the workplace (‘Security,’ 1992). The Long Island Coalition for Workplace Violence Awareness and Prevention is very active in promoting workplace violence awareness and prevention.
Numerous documents have been produced by this coalition to assist employers and employees reduce the risk from workplace violence. The purpose of their workplace violence guide is to educate employers, employees, and others about ways to reduce risks and injuries from workplace violence, as well as, identifying additional contacts and reference sources to implement a workplace violence awareness and prevention program (‘Workplace Violence,’ 1996). The NYC Police Department, Office of Management Analysis and Planning, was contacted telephonically and through a written request for information on felonious assaults committed in the workplace in the five boroughs of NYC for the calendar years 1990 through 1995. Unfortunately, the police departments’ computerized records do not differentiate workplace crimes from other crimes.
So that information is not readily available for comparison purposes. Neither is this information available in the City of Newburgh Police Department. The State of New York has introduced to the Senate an act to amend the labor law, in relation to requiring employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence. The act starts out stating that:’ The legislature finds and declares that workplace assaults and homicides are a serious public health problem that demands the attention of the state of New York. During the last decade, homicide was the third leading cause of death for all workers and the leading cause of occupational death for women workers.’ (S. 5945, 1998).
The legislature goes on to state the need for companies to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence. Additionally, definitions and risk evaluation and determination guidelines are stated. Unfortunately, due to various interpretations of the wordings and the responsibility directed on the employers to provide a safe working environment, the act has not yet passed the Senate. However, initiatives have been made to pursue establishing legislature to promote a safer work environment for employees against violent assaults. Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (C ISD) teams are comprised of dedicated and trained mental-health professionals who combine their expert knowledge and talents with specially trained peer support personnel drawn form emergency service’s ranks.
Their main objectives are to mitigate the impact of a critical incident and accelerate the return of personnel to routine functions after the incident. These teams can be established when deemed necessary to deal with a traumatic incident in a workplace environment. It is evident that violence in the workplace is increasing, and various organizations realize that measures need to be taken to curb this tendency. OSHA is the leader in establishing definitions of violence in its various forms, risk factors identified, work site analysis, safety and health training, programs for the prevention of violence, as well as, management commitment and employee involvement. However, even this type of guideline can not cover every situation and provide control measures for every violence encounter.
The goal is to eliminate or reduce worker exposure to conditions that lead to death or injury from violence by implementing effective security devices and administrative work practices, among other control measures. CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY Research Design Selection of Subjects The selection of the sample companies that were considered was based on the researcher’s criteria established for service-oriented industries or companies only as listed in the SIC coding system for Orange County, New York. The subjects that were used for this study were selected from private, public, and governmental organizations that may or may not have had a violent act committed at their organization or against them. The research study methodology instrument was a survey containing 25 closed-answered questions and 5 short-answered questions. The survey was accomplished by delivering the survey instrument to the selected service industries and companies.
The administrator for each service-oriented industry or company distributed the methodology instrument to female employees. The participants were females in any position within each organization. The administrator collected the surveys and returned them to me. This supported anonymity of the subjects and encouraged participation in this research.
Instrumentation The survey instrument that was developed for this research study was based on a survey instrument used by the U. S. Department of Justice in their efforts to represent various aspects of criminal victimization in the United States during 1993. The survey participants were asked to respond to the survey instrument that had 25 closed-answered questions and 5 short-answered questions (Appendix Two). The sure.