Peace at Work

I finally heard it.  I mean, I have heard people say “its a myth that people just snap”.  But I have never heard anyone say that. I was beginning to think that it was a myth that it was a myth.  But then I read this article Workplace Violence and Termination Etiquette. “Seemingly ‘regular’ people who appear to have simply ’snapped’,” is his leading hypothesis.  As an attention grabber, it is not bad but the problem is that it gets worse. 

President George W. Bush was recently assaulted by a journalist who threw his shoes at the Commander in Chief. He was never in any danger from this assault and must say that he deftly dodged the first throw.

I don’t mean to be glib about the issue. Many public figures have been tragically slain. It is hard to think of running for and running a public office as an occupation with its own risks but many ways, it is the most dangerous job in existence.

Let’s look at other incidents of violence among our governing bodies. I won’t list the assassinations that bereft communities of their best leaders.

In so many of my presentations, I get a semi-serious answer that to prevent workplace violence, shoot them first.  When someone comes charging in the door, guns a blazing, de-escalation training or a policy or even a panic button will not help. Only physically stopping them will save your life.  That is right. Not much else will help.   

But when this is promoted as a central or sole prevention measure, it may actually be feeding the mentality that justifies violence.  I am not saying that gun rights advocates are murders or one of these serial killers. I respect the desire to defend yourself and your family. But there is this enthusiasm, this almost excited anticipation of someone giving them an excuse to shoot first. 

The question is when is right to shoot someone? When they are shooting at you or someone else? If they are just talking about it?  The most common response is for self-defense. But how that is defined and what is being defended is skewed by those who justify these rampages. What if your pride, ego and identified are endangered by the loss of a job, status, a lover or public image?  What if your rights were being infringed upon; would you kill someone who may be limiting your rights to bear arms?   

It may be that I exaggerating this perspective; most who want to protect themselves will only do so when absolutely necessary.  But it is this emphasis or almost fascination with guns and their power that underscores the threat of violence in the first place.  

Let me tell you something that shows you what I talking about and what happened to me earlier this summer.  While providing a workplace violence training and reviewing the organization’s policy on no firearms at work, I met with some heated resistance.  I explained that this is standard for most employers, private, government and non-profits across the country, but still met with an aggressive response as if I was taking their guns out of their hip holsters.  I showed them studies and offered case examples of how guns at work would be a bad idea. Perhaps I should have left the matter alone after just explaining the policy.

One person was particularly bitter and vindictive.  After the class, I picked up the remaining handouts to find a portrait- visually expressing his thoughts on my presentation and the policy.