Workplace Violence: What is Normal/Abnormal?

Almost all of us have some direct knowledge about violence, and for some, that knowledge is unfortunately intimate. Yet, despite our familiarity with violence, we repeatedly and collectively misunderstand violence in two fundamental ways. First, we continue to think about violence in terms of “normal” and “abnormal” behavior, yet this is a false dichotomy. All violence is normal and logical to the perpetrator – a means for them to meet a need. Once we accept the normalcy and logic for the perpetrator, only then can we move to understanding motives, trajectory, and intervention to move one off a path of violence.

Second, we routinely fail to make a clear distinction between two primary modes of violence. In doing so, we often assess violence risk inaccurately, and we employ the wrong interventions.

The “Normalcy” Problem

From the typical workplace management perspective, we are often focused on clarifying what is normal vs. abnormal and how to make it go away or remove the “person?” Instead, what if we focused on all workplace reactions as having an internal logic and then tried to develop understanding and interventions off on that premise?

•  Normal can become abnormal quickly and vice versa
• “Abnormal” can be safe
• “Normal” can be dangerous

A useful general definition of violence is “an intentional act of aggression directed at another human being that causes or is likely to cause physical injury.” Meloy (2000)

That definition is recent; the phenomenon is ancient, dating back to the beginning of recorded human history and the story of Cain and Abel. Mass violence is not new to us either, as clearly exemplified in Damon Linker’s seminal work “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” where he accounts for numerous episodes of mass killings dating back tens of thousands of years.

Despite our living with and around violence for millennia, why do we have such a limited understanding of it?

What is Affective Violence?

Imagine a house cat loosely tethered to a corner of the room with mobility to move several feet but not to escape. Now imagine a large Rottweiler slowly approaching. What is the cat doing? He is most likely hissing, back arched, claws extended, scanning his full field of vision, ready to run or attack. This is effective violence; it is a fight-or-flight response. The response is to a perceived immediate threat – whether external or internal (such as psychological instability, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, and so on). The mode is defensive and reactive. The goal is threat reduction. The overwhelming majority of violence and the majority of workplace aggression is affective in nature.

What is Predatory Violence? 

Let’s imagine the cat once again, now in the backyard on a sunny day, standing 40 feet from a bird digging for worms in the grass. Now the cat is showing a very different behavioral response. He’s very quiet and crouched. Claws are retracted ready to stalk, not yet attack, with a laser-like focus on his prey. This is predatory violence. The human correlate is an army sniper, mass shooter, or lone-actor terrorist. Unlike affective violence, predatory violence is NOT a response to a perceived imminent threat. One can certainly perceive the target as a type of threat due to ideological reasons or some future concern, but there is nothing imminent about it. There is no clear and present danger to the safety and security of the attacker.

Unlike affective violence, predatory violence is NOT a response to a perceived imminent threat. One can certainly perceive the target as a type of threat due to ideological reasons or some future concern, but there is nothing imminent about it. There is no clear and present danger to the safety and security of the attacker.

We often confuse effective for predatory violence and vice versa, and in doing so employ the wrong strategies. Interventions for affective violence must focus on helping the subject reach emotional equilibrium and feel less threatened through treatment, skill-building, rehabilitation interventions, and awareness training. Interventions for predatory violence should focus on threat identification, risk assessment, and thwarting and/or redirecting the violent intention of the would-be assailant. 

Most incidents of workplace hostility and aggression represent affective violence, and almost all incidents of mass shootings/attacks represent predatory violence. Yet in policy and practice, we treat them the same. To the extent we can help educate various professions and the public on the differences between these violence modes, we will be more effective in shaping our detection, assessment, and intervention protocols according to the type of violence we are trying to stop.

Four Rules to Managing Workplace Violence – What You Can Do?

1. Have a plan. Have a plan. Have a plan.
2. Train to the plan 
3. Follow the plan
4. Measure the plan  

Understand precursors to violence, know your resources for assessment and management, visualize violence scenarios, and be proactive, NOT reactive. Any action is better than inaction!