Zero Tolerance is Not Enough: Making Workplace Violence Prevention Really Work
Zero Tolerance is a modern day example of the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.* To some extent, zero tolerance policies in the workplace describe the American backlash to violence, unwanted behavior and actions in schools and professional sports leagues. In the early 1990s, politicians began to here the public outrage and discontent with violence, crime, drugs and other anti-social problems. Fueled by media hype, in the aftermath of a number of high profile, extremely violent incidents at public schools, fear of the unthinkable and perhaps even a bit of guilt, more parents started demanding that school boards implement strict policies to deal with kids who step out of line. As a result, “zero tolerance” got its beginnings from the larger societal discontent and subsequent Congressional response to students with guns. It was proclaimed as a policy to provide safe school environments and took on the mantra of a harsh, mandatory, “take-no-prisoners,” overzealous approach to discipline that has been increasingly used in this country’s criminal justice system. Thus, we saw the implementation of a draconian “one size fits all” approach to deal with school disciplinary issues, sweep the American landscape.
Corporations reacted to the public outcry by following suit and started to implement zero tolerance policies as well. Faced with this historical perspective, let’s examine the journey that zero tolerance has taken in corporate America.
While corporations started implementing zero tolerance policies, they quickly recognized some significant differences in implementing a policy for a business versus one for a school. First and foremost, it was quickly recognized that the “one size fits all” approach would not work since most firms have some form of progressive discipline which is built on the premise of “just cause” and “due process.” In addition, employers had to be diligent about paying attention to the myriad of discrimination laws that require consistent treatment of employees.
Both of these principles pose severe problems for a “one size fits all” approach. This incongruence led to one of the major problems with zero tolerance: employees perceived that it was a “one size fits all” approach because this is what exists in the schools their children attend, which is where they first learned about zero tolerance. The reality is that in the business world it was really an incident based approach where each situation would be judged based on the circumstances involved, the nature of the situation, the employee’s record, current policies, etc. Consequently, if an employee made a low level threat, employee perception was that with a zero tolerance policy the employee should be terminated. Since the employer is obligated to follow their human resource policies and apply the principles of “just cause, due process and non-discrimination,” employees believed the company was not serious about addressing violence because warning the person did not fit their image of zero tolerance. Their translation is that the company was willing to tolerate violence unless an employee was seriously injured or killed, which to them was ridiculous and did not mean zero tolerance. It leads to a serious case of cognitive dissonance, which leads to mistrust of management and the belief that the company does not have the best interest of employees in mind. Once again, best intentions gone awry.
“It’s easy to state that you have a zero tolerance policy: it’s another thing to really think through what it means. Does it mean one strike and you’re out? Does it mean that if you slam your fist on a desk in frustration you’re guilty of workplace violence and will be terminated? Too often policies backfire because they’re not properly crafted or haven’t been thought through all the way,” said Stephen Hirschfeld, senior partner at the San Francisco law firm of Curiale, Dellaverson, Hirschfeld, Kelly & Kramer, LLP.
As Dave Ulrich, who is widely recognized as one of the top gurus in human resources, states, “It’s one thing to state that the organization will not tolerate any form of undesirable or illegal activity, but it’s impossible to apply a standard punishment or solution for every incident. A policy needs teeth, but it also needs to be fair.”
A second problem with the zero tolerance approach is that it is reactive in nature. It in essence states, “if you violate our workplace violence policy or act in an inappropriate manner it will not be tolerated and you will be punished.” While that is fine, it ignores the fundamental principle of providing a safe work environment that is to prevent people from being injured in the first place. No safety program worth its salt would dare focus on passively waiting for injuries to occur and putting a focus on how to react after the fact.
The zero tolerance approach is characterized by the creation of a human resources policy that focuses on the organization having no tolerance for threats, threatening behavior or violent acts. Primary focus is put on how the organization will react once inappropriate behavior has occurred. For example, one firm’s policy states: “The intent of this policy is to increase employee awareness of the procedures to be followed in the event of workplace violence.” This may be a bit late in the process since once violence has occurred it is likely that someone has already been injured or worse.
Despite these issues corporations persisted with implementing zero tolerance policies because it makes them appear to be “getting tough on violence,” and it makes management feel good that they are taking a stance. The sad reality is that this overzealous and politically driven approach, in many cases, undermines truly addressing potential violent situations in the workplace and in addition, leads to discord between management and employees.
Perhaps Samuel Greengard said it best in his article “Zero Tolerance: Making It Work,” when he stated, “Zero tolerance [became] the rage. But dealing with workplace problems requires more than rhetoric. It’s about crafting an effective policy and putting all the pieces in place to make it work. Zero tolerance is a concept that sounds straightforward and simple, but is inherently complex.”
*Erik Pistol, September 19, 2002, NewsWithViews.com
Note: This article originally appeared in http://www.thehumanequation.com/
