Technical Affairs

Mike Aamodt, Associate Editor

This month's Technical Affairs column contains an answer to a reader's question about workplace violence and another piece of HR Humor.

Question

I read an article about the increase in workplace violence and was wondering if many organizations are testing applicants for predispositions to violence?

Answer

The issue of workplace violence has certainly received a good deal of attention over the past five years. However, much of this attention may be "overkill" as it relates to human resource professionals. Though workplace violence accounts for roughly 17% of workplace fatalities, the vast majority of these incidents involve violence against an employee during the commission of a crime and violence against law enforcement officers. A relatively small percentage of workplace violence is committed by employees who go "berserk" and kill other employees or supervisors. Now, this is not to say that employee violence is not an issue, as most of us have had encounters with violent employees. However, the number of violent employees is not so great as to justify a general movement toward screening for violent tendencies for all jobs. Instead, our efforts are better spent on security, management awareness, and organizational culture solutions.

Even if we wanted to screen for potential violence, we have few tools available to do so. A national consulting firm is currently being sued because it advised clients to avoid hiring people who fit the "workplace violence profile." Because the typical berserker is:

male,
white,
usually in his 40's,
a loner,
has his self-esteem tied to his job, and
has a predisposition to violence (e.g. fond of violent films, fascinated by guns),

the consulting firm suggested that its clients not hire middle-aged white males who belong to the National Rifle Association. Obviously, use of such a profile will not help us screen applicants.

What else could we use? Psychological tests (e.g. the MMPI) are a possibility, but research has not been supportive of their validity in predicting violence. Reference checks might have some merit as people who have engaged in previous workplace violence are most likely to engage in future workplace violence. However, given the difficulty in getting any kind of information from former employers, reference checks cannot be the sole answer.

Criminal history checks are another possibility. However, human resource professionals are somewhat limited in what they can do with such information. When an organization uncovers an applicant's past criminal conviction or history of violence, it must be concerned with balancing the need to avoid negligent hiring suits and workplace violence incidents with the need to avoid discriminating against ex-offenders (see EEOC Decision No. 72-1460). Because of these concerns, the EEOC has set down three vague guidelines for determining if there is a business necessity for refusing to hire an ex-offender. These guidelines require employers to consider:

the nature and gravity of the offense
the amount of time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence
the nature of job held or being sought.

The EEOC states that there should be a "reasonable amount of time" between the ex-offender's release from prison and the organization's decision to hire the ex-offender. Unfortunately, neither the EEOC nor the courts have provided guidelines as to what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of time to wait before offering employment to an ex-offender.

If any of our readers have any thoughts about how to screen for potentially violent employees, please drop me a line or an e-mail, and I will include your suggestions in the next issue of the ACN.

HR Humor

The following piece of HR Humor was found on the Internet by ACN reader Nichol Davis. As with most things on the Internet, I do not know its original source.

Actual Quotes from Performance Evaluations

His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.
I would not allow this employee to breed.
This employee is not so much of a has-been, but more of a definitely won't-be.
When she opens her mouth, it seems that this is only to change whichever foot was previously there.
He has carried out each of his duties to his entire satisfaction.
This employee has delusions of adequacy.
Since my last report he has reached rock bottom and has started to dig.
This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
She sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them.
Technically sound, but socially impossible.
This employee reminds me very much of a gyroscope -- always spinning around at a frantic pace but not really going anywhere.
He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.

Mike Aamodt, a Professor of Psychology at Radford University serves as our Associate Editor for the Technical Affairs column and as our unofficial humor editor. If you have a technical question you want answered/discussed, wish to comment on this month's article, or want to share a humor item please contact Mike. He may be reached by email(maamodt@runet.edu), phone [(540) 831-5513)] or fax [(540) 831-6113].