WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND MEDIATION

Recent events have brought renewed concern about incidents of workplace violence.

Last summer the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, all published a report on fatal and non-fatal violence in and away from the workplace. According to the study, an average of 1.3 million non-fatal violent workplace victimizations occurred annually. Approximately half were committed by people the victims knew. Further, in 2019, 454 people lost their lives as a result of workplace violence.

These reports galvinized a push to identify a single cause for the violence and demands for a solution, whether it be gun control or addressing mental health.

As one who has studied conflict, I would point out a cause and possible course of action for at least some of this violence. Conflict theorists have long made it clear disagreements are inevitable in organizations, whether minor or major.

Conflict theorists have long pointed out when fair and accessible means of dealing with issues, such as ombuds offices, union grievance procedures, and affordable legal remedies don’t exist, people express their emotion and frustration in nonproductive ways. Modern managers know they must provide ways for disagreements to be addressed productively. Non-productive ways range from doing only what is required of the job, taking office supplies home, rumors and gossip, damaging equipment, verbal and physical fights, and even the use of firearms to threaten and harm others.

One constructive management practice is to endorse and participate in workplace mediation. When employees know management will mediate workplace conflicts, employees are less likely to engage in non-productive expression since they're aware there's an opportunity to be heard. If instead the employee feels there's no such option, potential workplace danger increases.