The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us From Violence

by Gavin De Becker

  If a company is going to be able to respond to the kinds of things that the employees felt were really predictive, they have to learn about them. It takes time to encourage employees to tell supervisors when someone makes them feel uncomfortable or apprehensive. It takes planning. But when the call comes that someone is shooting in Building 16, it’s too late to do that planning.

  His study also confirmed my beliefs about the relationship between media reporting and workplace violence:

  It is a pattern that has increased in frequency and is so dependent on media that we can anticipate after each nationally publicized story there will be several more in the weeks that follow. The reason for that is the people who commit these acts are searching for solutions to their dilemmas. When they see a news account of someone doing the things they feel like doing, who seems like them, they identify with such people, and this is part of what causes them to move from inaction to action.

  Many situations that evolved into violence had been brewing for a long time, and senior executives had no idea what was going on. Why? Because nobody wanted to report it to a supervisor. Why? Because someone might say, “Hey, can’t you handle your own people? Don’t you know how to deal with these things?”

  I had a meeting a couple of years ago with a client who is the CEO of a large national company. During a discussion about restaurants owned by the company, I said, “You must have had plenty of circumstances where female employees had to deal with unwanted pursuit or stalking.” He replied, “I heard about one of those cases, but it really hasn’t been a serious problem for us.” A couple of hours later, I asked the Human resources director and he said, “Oh, sure, we’ve had about six or seven of those cases in the last year; they can sometimes be a problem.” Then he called the executive in charge of the restaurant division, who said, “We probably have two of those a month. I can think of about 20 we’ve had in recent years. It’s a very serious problem.”

  If managers never get an opportunity to comment on or to influence a situation that might be relevant to safety, then critical decisions are left in the hands of people who are only making them because they think their bosses want them to or because they are afraid to tell anybody they can’t. Companies can stimulate reporting by communicating that they want to know and by welcoming information even when it is bad news. In some companies, if a manager makes a prediction that an employee’s alarming or disturbing behavior might escalate, and he brings this to his seniors, he runs the risk of being perceived as wrong for over-reacting and wrong for not being able to handle the matter himself. Most unfairly, he may be perceived as wrong every day that nothing happens. I propose that large organizations redefine the word wrong in this context to include just three criteria. A manager is wrong only if he or she:

  1. Doesn’t consider safety first

  2. doesn’t ask the right questions

  3. doesn’t communicate concerns clearly and early

  I am fortunate to work with some forward-thinking companies that tell their managers, in effect, “We do not expect you to handle these behavioral-sciences issues. We do not expect you to know about how to manage people that are alarming or volatile. If you can manage 95% of the people you are dealing with, that’s an accomplishment. The 5 percent that depart from normal behavior—those that intimidate, threaten, or frighten—they should be reported to us.”

  ▪ ▪ ▪

  Difficult terminations and situations involving threatening employees are similar to other volatile social situations. These include divorce, disputes with neighbors, disputes with financial institutions, acrimonious lawsuits, and dissolving partnerships. What they all have in common is that the interests of one party are in direct conflict with the interests of another party. Accordingly, resolutions that are completely satisfactory to all parties are rare.

  To complicate matters, the difficult employee often has similar problems away from work as well. The good things in his life are like dominos that have started to topple: Confidence has toppled into performance, which topples into identity, which knocks over self-esteem. The loss of his job may knock over the few remaining dominos, but the one that employers must be careful not to topple is the dignity domino, because when that falls, violence is most likely. Consider JACA:

  Justification: The employee can feel justified in using violence when the employer has taken everything away.

  Alternatives: He may perceive fewer and fewer alternatives to violence, particularly if he has exhausted all appeals processes.

  Consequences: His evaluation of the consequences of violence changes as he sinks lower. If he feels angry enough, particularly if he feels humiliated, the consequences of violence may become favorable.

  Ability: Often, angry current or former employees over-estimate their ability to deliver violence. This is dangerous because they are more likely to try grandiose attacks intended to “kill everyone,” or to “blow up everything.” Though they rarely succeed at quite the level they envision, they still hurt plenty of people.

  ▪ ▪ ▪

  What is it that employers who have had the worst outcomes did, or failed to do?

  Of course hiring is where it starts. The hiring officer has made a prediction that the candidate will meet the needs of the company and will be a well-adjusted, capable, and productive employee. We know predictions are better with more information, so investigating candidates’ backgrounds is key. I don’t mean that background checks can be expected to reliably screen out employees who will later act violently, because violence is a process that evolves over time; it is not a condition or a state. But effective background checks do give an employer the opportunity to learn important information about a candidate the easy way.

  I testified in a case involving a security firm called MacGuard, which employed a man named Rodney Garmanian. They gave him the uniform he used to lure an 18-year-old girl named Teak Dyer into his car. They gave him the car he used to drive her away. They gave him the keys to the locked building where he took her, the handcuffs he used to restrain her, the billy club he struck her with, and the gun he murdered her with. MacGuard had failed to conduct any pre-employment background check or even to review Garmanian’s application. Had they taken those few minutes, they would have learned that he failed to fill out most of the form, and what he did fill out was not favorable. He had listed his term in the military as being three months. That kind of thing is an obvious area for inquiry: “Why were you in the military for only three months, Mr. Garmanian? Most people are in the military longer.” He had listed his reason for leaving on two of the former jobs as “fired,” yet MacGuard didn’t ask him anything about that.

  Perhaps the most chilling thing about this case is what I learned simply by calling two of his former employers. The first told me, “Oh, yes, I remember Rodney Garmanian. He once tried to have sex with a girl on the second floor when the building was closed.” The second person said, “Oh, yes, I remember Rodney Garmanian. He drew sexually solicitous drawings and put them in the ladies’ room.” The murder Garmanian ultimately committed occurred in the ladies’ room on the second floor of a closed building. For twenty-five cents I had learned information that, had Garmanian’s employers bothered to get it, could have saved Teak Dyer’s life. Checking references and checking with former employers is an absolutely critical duty of every employer.

  Another case I testified in involved an employee who intentionally drove his truck at high speed through a line of picketers; several people were injured, and one was brain damaged. Here again, there was an ineffective pre-employment inquiry. References were not called, information offered on the application was not confirmed. In fact, just on the face of it, the application demonstrated a lack of full disclosure and a lack of honesty. For example, telephone numbers listed under references also appeared under relatives, and telephone numbers that when dialed went to people’s homes were offered as being companies. Checking such things can tell you without much effort that the applicant is not hone
st. At a minimum, it tells you that there are some additional issues to be explored with him.

  The failure to take the obvious step of calling references is an epidemic in America, and I have little patience for managers who complain about employees they didn’t care enough to assess before hiring. A common excuse for this failure is that the references will say only good things since the candidate has prepared them for the call. In fact, there is a tremendous amount of information to be gained from references in terms of confirming facts on the application. “Did you know him when he worked for such and such a firm? When did he work for such and such a firm? Do you know roughly what salary he was making? Do you know what school he went to? You said you went to school with him.” I suggest that questions asked of those listed as references be guided by information on the application.

  The most important thing references can give you are other references. We call these “developed sources.” These are people who know the applicant but whom he did not list as references. Accordingly, they are not prepared for your inquiry and will be more likely to provide valuable information. You get the names of developed sources by asking the references the applicant listed for the names of other people who know him.

  The interview with the applicant is another opportunity to gain valuable background information. This may seem obvious, but many employers don’t use this best resource. The first issue to explore is an applicant’s truthfulness during the pre-employment process. When people lie on applications, they rarely recall exactly how they lied, so I suggest holding the application in your hand and asking questions right off it as you interview a candidate. The most common lie is about the duration of previous jobs. Eight months is reported as a year, eighteen months as two years, etc.

  During pre-employment interviews (which can be videotaped), there are a series of questions we suggest asking. Though not an exhaustive list, here are some examples:

  “Describe the best boss you ever had,” and “Describe the worst boss you ever had.”

  This is a powerful inquiry that can reveal important attitudes about managers and management. If the applicant speaks for just a moment about his best boss, but can wax on enthusiastically about the worst bosses, this is telling. Does he use expressions like “personality conflict” to explain why things did not work out with previous employers? Does he ridicule former bosses? Does he take any responsibility for his part?

  “Tell me about a failure in your life and tell me why it occurred.”

  Does the applicant say he cannot think of one? If he can describe something he perceives as a failure, does he take responsibility for it or does he blame others (e.g., “I never graduated high school because those damned teachers didn’t know how to motivate me”)?

  “What are some of the things your last employer could have done to be more successful?

  Does the applicant offer a long list of items and appear to feel he could have run things better than management did? Are his comments constructive or angry? There is a follow-up:

  “Did you ever tell your previous employer any of your thoughts on ways they could improve?”

  If he says “Yes, but they never listened to anyone,” or “Yeah, but they just said ‘Mind your own business,’” this may tell more about the style of his approach than about managers at his last job. Most employers react well to suggestions that are offered in a constructive way, regardless of whether or not they follow them. Another unfavorable response is, “What’s the use of making suggestions? Nothing ever changes anyway.” Some applicants will accuse former employers of stealing their ideas. Others will tell war stories about efforts to get a former employer to follow suggestions. If so, ask if this was a one-man undertaking or in concert with his coworkers. Sometimes an applicant will say his co-workers “didn’t have the guts to confront management like I did.”

  “What are some of the things your last employer could have done to keep you?”

  Some applicants will give a reasonable answer (slightly more pay, better schedule, etc.), but others will provide a list of demands that demonstrate unreasonable expectations (e.g., “They could have doubled my salary, promoted me to vice president, and given me Fridays off”).

  “How do you go about solving problems at work?”

  Good answers are that he consults with others, weighs all points of view, discusses them with involved parties, etc. Unfavorable answers contain a theme of confrontation (e.g., “I tell the source of the problem he’d better straighten up,” or “I go right to the man in charge and lay it on the line”). Another bad answer is that he does nothing to resolve problems, saying, “Nothing ever changes anyway.”

  “Describe a problem you had in your life where someone else’s help was very important to you.”

  Is he able to recall such a situation? If so, does he give credit or express appreciation about the help?

  “Who is your best friend and how would you describe your friendship?”

  Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who cannot come up with a single name in response to this question. If they give a name that was not listed as a reference, ask why. Then ask if you can call that friend as a reference.

  ▪ ▪ ▪

  Some statements in an interview that appear to be favorable may actually mask characteristics that are unfavorable. “I am always on time,” or “I am very, very organized” are sometimes offered by applicants who will later be revealed as inflexible and territorial. Territorialism (my desk, my area, my assignment) is not necessarily an attribute. “If I say I’ll give you eight hours, you can be sure that’s what you’ll get, not a minute less” might be said by an applicant who will also hold you to his expectations, treating understandings as commitments, and unforeseen changes as unfairnesses.

  We can all rationalize anything, and when an employer is too anxious to fill a position, intuition is ignored. As I mentioned earlier about hiring baby-sitters, the goal should be to disqualify poor applicants rather than qualify good applicants. Those who are good will qualify themselves.

  ▪ ▪ ▪

  Another characteristic frequently seen in cases that ended badly is that the employee was not supervised appropriately.

  The concept of appropriate supervision can be stated in six words: praise for performance—correction for errors. It is as important to catch employees doing something right—and tell them—as it is to catch them doing something wrong, but above all, non-compliance must not be ignored. With the problem employee, supervisors have often given up on correcting him. Many of the problems that arise could have been avoided by treating this employee appropriately at every step, but people treated him differently because it was easier than resolving the issues.

  This type of employee is very sensitive and perceptive about being “handled,” particularly if it’s because of a concern that he will act violently. If he perceives that employers consider him dangerous, it can actually increase the likelihood of his acting out, because he has little to lose when he is already thought of as violent.

  ▪ ▪ ▪

  In addition to hiring the wrong people, and supervising them badly, employers who had the worst outcomes were also slow to fire people they knew had to go.

  A problem employee is easier to terminate before he makes a substantial emotional investment in the job, before the minor issues become causes, before disappointments become disgruntlements. The longer that emotional investment is made, the stronger it becomes, and the more likely it is that the termination will be difficult.

  Often employers are reluctant to fire someone who concerns them because they really don’t know the best way to do it. Below, I list some strategies for difficult terminations, but many are also applicable to terminating other emotionally invested relationships, such as those involving unwanted suitors, business partners, and former spouses. Individual circumstances will always call for customized responses, but these philosophies will usually apply.

  PROTECT THE DIGNITY DOMINO

&n
bsp; Prop it up with courtesy and understanding. Never embarrass an employee. Keep secret from him any concerns you have about serious harms he might commit. Think the worst if the indicators are there, but treat the terminated employee as if he were what you hope him to be. Treat him as if he is reasonable, as if you are not afraid of how he might react. Terminate his employment in a manner that demonstrates that you expect him to accept the news maturely and appropriately. This does not mean ignore the hazard. Just the opposite is wise: Prepare for the worst, but not in ways detectable to the terminated employee. Do not lead him to believe that you are anticipating threats or hazard. If you do, you may be writing a script for him to follow. Further, you are letting him know your vulnerabilities.