by Joy Dike, PhD

I recently read one of the most apt metaphors for why we should prepare for the possibility of terrorist threats in our nation's school. Written in the Foreword to Innocent Targets: When Terrorism Comes to School,  Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.) compares preparing for a fire with preparing for a terrorist attack at a school. It's worth repeating a few paragraphs verbatim:

"Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed by violence than fire, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured by violence as compared to fire. And yet, in any school you can look around and see fire sprinklers, smoke alarms, fire exits, and fire extinguishers. If we can spend all that money and time preparing for fire (and we should, since every life is precious), shouldn't we spend time and money preparing for the thing that is far more likely to kill or injure a child? 

The most negligent, unprofessional, obscene words anyone can ever say are, 'It will never happen here.' Imagine the firefighter saying, 'There will never be a fire in this building, and we don't need those fire extinguishers.'

When someone says, 'Do you really think there will be a terrorist act or a school shooting here?' I just point to the fire exit and say, 'Do you really think there will be a fire here? Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely that there would ever be a fire here. But we would be morally, criminally negligent if we did not prepare for the possibility. And the same is far, far more true of school violence.'" (pp.xviii-xix)


I really like this analogy because it speaks so clearly to the do-nothing strategy so many schools employ about a terrorist attack - school administrators often have the mindset that a terrorist attack or school shooting could never possibly happen on their campus. It's a problem for other people in other countries. Or at least other cities. "I don't have to worry about this problem in my community" is a mindset we find in far too many schools.

We need to break ourselves of this mindset. The methods to mitigate the threat of a terror attack are the same methods to mitigate the threat of an active shooter, and it starts with admitting that the school needs to have a risk assessment done and put a plan in place for various types of emergencies, not just fire emergencies. 

by Joy Dike, PhD

The interview process is never used a source of blame or condemnation - it is a data collection tool used to uncover gaps in security. With that said, sometimes interviewees are nervous to answer questions truthfully, fearing that they will be reprimanded or seen as ratting out the administration. This is precisely one of the times at which being a woman in the world of security consulting is a virtue. So many security consulting firms are paramilitary in nature - the majority of their assessors are ex-military and ex-law enforcement men, which can be intimidating. Imagine being nervous about an interview in the first place and then sitting face-to-face with an intimidating man who looks like he just stepped out of a RoboCop movie who asks you who has access to the building. "ummmm.... I think people have to sign in and the doors have keycard access...." (Never mind admitting to this man that sometimes teachers leave doors propped open! Best leave that little confession out of the interview...)

As a woman in the security industry, I see the value in sometimes having a less intimidating person conduct interviews at schools. We want people to be completely open and honest (otherwise we aren't really uncovering gaps in security), and the reality is that women faculty and staff are apt to be more open and honest with a woman interviewer.  

Being a woman in the security industry is a topic we will continue to explore on this blog, so come back regularly to take a look at this subject with us.

by Joy Dike, PhD

We talk a lot about active shooters, mass shootings, and workplace violence here on the Invictus Consulting blog. Here we go again...

Recently a man walked into a leasing office at an apartment complex In Tallahassee and opened fire. What we know so far is that this man was acting out in retaliation for his wife having been fired from her job at the apartment complex earlier that day. He shot an employee of the apartment complex 6 times (not fatally) and then went back outside and casually waited for the police to come, looking, "like a man who had accomplished his goal."

Let's look at this case in the context of active shooter, mass shootings, and workplace violence. Is this man an active shooter? Is this an an instance of a mass shooting? Is this a case of workplace violence?

Remember that the agreed-upon definition (by the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency) of an active shooter is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection." 

Is he an active shooter? Was he:

• attempting to kill people
• by shooting them
• in a populated area
• with no particular rhyme or reason for who he aims at 

The four major parts of the definition of an active shooter may fit in this case, IF we learn that the mindset of the perpetrator was to kill people indiscriminately. This information hasn't come to light yet. The first question is whether he intended to actually kill people. The other question is whether he was shooting randomly or if had chosen targets. This information also hasn't come to light, but the fact that he went to the leasing office (rather than the nearby apartment complex gym, pool, or computer room) may indicate that his targets were employees of the apartment complex rather than random individuals (or renters) at the apartment complex. Without knowing his mindset, we can't fully commit to calling this an active shooter case.

Was it a mass shooting? While there is little consensus on what defines a mass shooting (see this blog post and this white paper on active shooter statistics for a more detailed explanation of this topic), all definitions assume at least 3 people are shot. This instance, then, would not be classified as a mass shooting. 

Is this a case of workplace violence? There are four types of workplace violence offenders:

• Type I - The offender has no relationship with either the victims or the establishment. (This is random violence, often attempted robbery.)
• Type II - The offender currently receives services (e.g., retail, health) from the facility where they commit violence. (This often manifests as violence towards nurses or healthcare workers by their patients.)
• Type III - The offender is a current or former employee acting out against current or former place of employment. (If the woman who had been fired from the apartment complex had done the shooting [rather than her husband], the Tallahassee case would be Type III workplace violence.)
• Type IV - The offender has a relationship with an employee and domestic issues spill over into the workplace. (This often manifests as domestic disputes or domestic violence carrying over into the workplace of one or the other of the domestic partners.)

In the Tallahassee case, we can certainly classify the violence as Type IV workplace violence. This man had a relationship with an employee (his wife), and he committed violence at her workplace. Even though the wife was not present for the violence and her husband was not acting violently toward her, he still committed violence at a place of work where he had a relationship with an employee. 

Now that we've determined that this is not a mass shooting, is potentially not an active shooter situation, but is definitely a case of workplace violence, do you feel relieved? Safer? More scared? Glad that one less active shooter case has NOT happened in the United States? 

The reality is that workplace violence - whether it is a case of domestic violence, harassment, emotional abuse, threats, or an actual armed gunman - poses a greater threat to the daily safety of workers than do active shooters. Workplace violence occurs every day in places all over the country, and someone does not need to be wielding a gun to be classified as engaging in workplace violence; most instances of workplace violence do not involve guns at all. We've said it before, and we will say it again until workplaces are truly safe, but you need to have a workplace violence policy (i.e., a zero-tolerance policy), you need to make sure employees know about and follow the policy, and you need to make sure that your employees feel safe at work.

by Joy Dike, PhD

It's 10:30 on a Tuesday morning and you're sitting in your fifth floor office working on an important report. Your phone lights up with a text message alert from your company's mass notification system:  "Active shooter on campus. Shelter in place." 

WHAT DO YOU DO?

Really, take a moment and actually put yourself in this position and think about what you would do. I'll wait... 

Would you panic and hide? Run to the elevator or stairs and high tail it out of the building? Call your spouse? Pull the fire alarm? Pop your head out of the door and see what everyone else is doing? Freeze up, unable to move?

HERE'S WHAT YOU SHOULD DO:
Avoid
Deny 
Defend

During an active shooter situation there are steps you can take to protect yourself and increase your chances of survival. Understand this: it is a matter of life and death - your actual survival may depend on what you do.

AVOID - Avoid the shooter at all costs. Escape from the vicinity of the shooter. If you can leave the confines of the building, do it. 

DENY - If you cannot exit the building, the next step is to deny the shooter access to you and those around you. Find a place to hide. Lock the door. Barricade the door with office furniture or anything big. Use rope, a tie, or a belt to secure outward opening doors. Turn off the lights. Remain quiet, silence your phone, and remain out of sight. 

DEFEND - If you have hidden and attempted to deny the shooter access to your location but he still finds a way in, the next step is defend yourself. Remember that an active shooter is trying to kill you, and you have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary. At this point your life depends on how well you defend yourself - do not fight fair. Position yourself where you can surprise the gunman. Use any objects at hand (scissors, hot coffee, fire extinguisher, etc.) to attack the gunman and incapacitate him.

by Joy Dike, PhD

As consultants, we have the privilege to present our risk assessment findings and recommendations to the decision makers in an organization - CEOs, CFOs, Executive Directors, heads of security, general managers, engineers, IT directors, school Headmasters, and more. More often than not, these are the people who have actively sought out having a risk assessment performed for their institution and are keen on improving security.

With that said, there are times when our findings and recommendations fall on deaf ears. Sometimes the decision makers are offended by our findings or don't believe us. ("We do TOO have radio communication between the lobby and 10th floor!") Sometimes they don't understand the terminology. ("Each of the locations surveyed that have visitor traffic should employ visitor management systems managed by the same SMS systems database allowing for universal reporting.") Sometimes they're frightened by the findings. ("You mean anyone can just hop over that broken fence and have access to the school campus?!") And sometimes they're overwhelmed by how detailed the assessment it. ("You mean that we have 531 active users in the access control database? But we only have 75 employees!")

While our risk assessments are always done in an unbiased and objective manner, we understand that hearing about your organization's or institution's risks and threats is sometimes hard to acknowledge. This is why at Invictus Consulting we make sure that each debrief meeting isn't complete until the decision makers thoroughly understand both the findings and the recommendations.

by Joy Dike, PhD

Visit the Resources page of our website to download a white paper about this topic of active shooter statistics. 

by Joy Dike, PhD

A quick Google search of mass shootings in 2015 will give you an answer ranging from 4 to over 350. That's a startlingly large range. Were there 4 mass shootings in 2015 or were there 300? Or were there 21? Or 294? Or 32? How are we supposed to make sense of this?

The issue at hand is how the term "mass shooting" is defined. Do we include the shooter in the casualties? Do we count only those killed? Or those shot and those killed? Do people even have to die to consider it a mass shooting? Do we include gang shootings? Drug related shootings? Domestic violence shootings? The parameters make a difference.

The next time you look at active shooter or mass shooting statistics, think about where the data came from. 

Visit the Invictus Consulting blog again in the next few days as we continue this discussion about the meaning behind the statistics.

by Joy Dike, PhD

​A zero-tolerance policy towards workplace violence starts with having employees report violent or threatening behavior. Without this first step, no policy will be truly effective against workplace violence. 

How can you create an environment where employees will feel comfortable reporting threats?

1. Encourage employees to report violent or threatening behavior

This means creating an environment where employees feel comfortable reporting issues to their supervisors or up the management chain and don't feel alienated from management.

2. Make sure employees know where and how to report violent or threatening behavior

This means having a clear and specific method for employees to report issues. It may mean reporting through:

• normal management channels (if they are comfortable with their supervisors and/or the issue doesn't involve someone up the management chain)
• a designated office (if they're not comfortable going to a direct supervisor)
• a designated person 
• a suggestion box (in case the reporter wants to remain anonymous)
• a hotline number 

Within any or all of these channels, there needs to be a  clear and defined method of reporting. That may mean something as simple as a conversation or a form filled out. Whatever the method, document it.

3. Publicize the policy

A solid policy and method of reporting issues isn't effective if employees don't know about it. Publicizing your workplace violence policy could be as simple as: 

• posting it on a bulletin board
• including it in an employee newsletter
• including a notice distributed with paychecks

4. Make sure your employees know that you will take their report seriously

Your employees need to know that their concerns will be heard and that someone will follow up on the issue. A procedure whereby employees will be notified about how their report was addressed will go a long way towards building confidence in the system.


The first step in creating a zero-tolerance policy towards workplace violence is creating an atmosphere in which your employees feel comfortable reporting issues and feel like their voices will be heard. Click here to download our white paper about workplace violence.

by Joy Dike, PhD

We come across a vast array of office cultures. The ones that give rise to the most problems are those that lack an environment of communication, but at the same time cultivate an environment of fear of rejection or reprisals for speaking up. If you find that that is your institution, then the following is for you:

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has one overarching suggestion for reducing workplace violence hazards: "One of the best protections employers can offer their workers is to establish a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence. This policy should cover all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel."

There are many aspects that go in to a zero-tolerance policy, but it all starts with making sure employees report and log violent and threatening behaviors by coworkers. How can you kill your zero-tolerance policy before it even gets off the ground?

1. Make sure your employees feel scared of their supervisors. Double down and make sure they're also too afraid to report violent or threatening behavior up the normal management channels. 

2. Make sure your employees are alienated from management. You don't want employees feeling comfortable enough with management to bring their concerns forward.

3. Make sure your employees have no idea how to report violent or threatening behavior. Better yet, don't even set a policy for reporting violent or threatening behavior. If there's no policy, you won't get any reports and your job is done!

4. Make sure your employees are clear that no action will be taken if they report violent or threatening behavior. Try a paper shredder at the bottom of the suggestion box. That way reports won't even be seen let alone investigated. 

In all seriousness, employees need to have a clear picture about how and when to report violent or threatening behavior. No workplace violence policy will be effective if people don't know how to report threats. Come back in the next few days to learn some steps towards implementing a solid and effective zero-tolerance workplace violence policy.

by Joy Dike, PhD

"I'm so mad I could kill someone."

Have you ever heard someome say something like this at work? 

Listen, workplace violence is a serious issue, and threatening behavior in the workplace is not something to take lightly. The FBI indicates that there is no profile or litmus test that exists to demonstrate whether an employee might become violent. There are, however, some problem situations that may give rise to violence – personality conflicts between coworkers; mishandled termination or disciplinary action; weapons at the worksite; or drug or alcohol abuse at the worksite. Other risk factors are personal but spill over into the workplace – the breakup of a marriage or romantic relationship; family conflict; financial or legal problems; or emotional problems.
 
It is well documented that individuals rarely snap and engage in workplace violence without first exhibiting behaviors of concern. Knowing and reporting these behaviors of concern is just as important as understanding the problem situations and risk factors that often precede behaviors of concern. Such behaviors of concern could include depression, threats, menacing behavior, erratic behavior, aggressive outburst, offensive conversation, jokes referring to violence, increasing tardiness, increasing absenteeism, worsening relationships with coworkers, decreased productivity, homicidal comments, increasing belligerence, hypersensitivity to criticism, and verbal abuse. Of course any of these behaviors alone is not necessarily more suggestive of potential workplace violence, but many of these behaviors taken together should raise warning flags. 

Let's revisit the person who yelled, "I'm so mad I could kill someone!" Is this a threat that should be taken seriously? The answer really lies in the collective past behavior of the individual making the threat. Let's say this particular person has been increasingly tardy to work, has showed a marked decrease in productivity, and has regularly shown up to work disheveled. In this case, yes, this threat should be taken seriously. 

Having a risk management plan that incorporates workplace violence is an important part of keeping your employees, clients, and place of business safe. Make sure people understand what behavior your expect from them and how to detect erratic and threatening behavior.