Did our Legal/Judicial System Fail the U. of Alabama/Huntsville?

In the Workplace Violence case of the Harvard-educated neurobiologist at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, were her previous violent eruptions hidden by a judicial system that often seems to protect offenders at the expense of innocent people?

Even worse, did the judicial system show favoritism in the way it handled her previous outbursts and other accusations against her?  If in earlier years the courts had insisted that the young woman get psychological help or receive anger management training, could the violent episode in 2010 have been prevented?

Due diligence by the University should have uncovered at least some of these  incidents, but it did not.  Why? What prevented the would-be employer from uncovering violent behavior that had occurred before and therefore would likely recur in some form? Because charges were never filed.  Why were charges not filed?  In our system where the majority of offenders are male and not highly educated, would the System have acted differently if this offender had not been a well-educated female?

In a case like this where three people were shot dead and others injured, one would have expected to see some warning signs that a violent eruption could be in the works.  If all the previous incidents had occurred at this university or even in the city of Huntsville, we’d like to think that sufficient information would have been uncovered to cast doubt on this woman’s ability to function safely.  Perhaps  she would not have been hired or greater attention would have been paid to her behavior and to feedback from students, faculty, and administrators.

So what went terribly wrong?  Did the legal/judicial system fail us by not thoroughly investigating significant incidents?  Why? Dismissing or hiding incidents to protect offenders can result in the price ultimately being paid by innocent people instead. Failure to investigate violent eruptions and wiping the records clean to protect someone who needs psychological help are expensive and ineffective ways of solving our Workplace Violence and mental health problems.

Should We Have Predicted the Alabama and Texas Acts of Violence?

Did both the untenured Alabama prof and the unemployed Texas pilot show signs of troubled individuals that were apt to commit violent behavior?

Both of these recent cases are consistent with our premise that violence does not just happen, but rather anger and violent tendencies build toward an outright explosion like the eruption of a volcano (Van Fleet and Van Fleet, The Violence Volcano).  What makes them different is that, unlike most cases of Workplace Violence, the signs may not have been visible to the ultimate victims. Thus, there did not seem to be the usual opportunity to intervene before the volcano erupted — or in the case of the professor, before the volcano erupted again.

We know now that the Harvard-trained professor had reached the explosive point on previous occasions — e.g., when she shot her brother at home (not an incident of workplace violence) and when she exploded at another mother in a restaurant.  It is important to note that she was not held responsible for her actions in the first case and only received probation in the second, hence leaving no record that would be uncovered during due process by a future employer. Thus, there was little, if any, opportunity for the Alabama faculty to know about the past.  The observations that were made by students and faculty – “weird” and perhaps not a really effective teacher – are not signs of impending explosiveness.

Apparently the unemployed Austin software engineer/musician/pilot had had disagreements with the IRS over the years, but this would not have been known by the IRS personnel working in the glass-front building in Austin.  His wife and daughter are said to have noted a major change recently in his behavior and temperament but would not have had reason to expect that he would attack someone’s workplace (he did not have a workplace). As with the professor, previous signs occurred geographically removed from the current worksites and therefore not visible to the ultimate victims.

From the information we have at this writing, it seems that no one was in a position to see these explosive acts coming.  However, in hindsight, were there signs that were overlooked? It is very important that both the Alabama department  and the IRS as well as the families take off the blinders now and look carefully for signs that were perhaps missed.

Did “Sick” Work Environment Cause Missouri Job Shooting?

There’s still no definitive answer as to why Timothy G. Hendron arrived at ABB Inc. in St. Louis on Thursday, Jan 7, armed with hundreds of bullets and an assault rifle, two handguns and a shotgun. He popped off more than 100 rounds at about 6:30 a.m. CT at the Swiss-owned St. Louis transformer manufacturing company, killing at least three coworkers and injuring five others before shooting himself.

Clearly, there are numerous things that can push an employee toward an act of violence. Although individuals cannot be absolved from blame for violence, in some cases it is the organization itself that is “sick” enough to trigger workplace violence. In a “normal environment” individuals may express their stress or vent their negative feelings in a more-or-less acceptable manner.  But in a “sick environment,” especially if the organization does not acknowledge and change its climate, the hostility continues to build. Eventually, the Violence Volcano can be expected to erupt in the form of more extreme violent behavior, such as death or other irreparable damage.

There is a possibility that this is what happened at ABB Inc. Reportedly, Hendron and a few other ABB employees had been dissatisfied with actions regarding the company’s retirement plan. They had filed a lawsuit in 2006 against administrators of the company’s retirement plan. We don’t yet know the feedback, if any, that may have been given to the plaintiffs or the expected outcome of that case. Hendron may have thought, for example, that it was a losing battle and thus decided to take the case into his own hands.

In The Violence Volcano (Van Fleet and Van Fleet, 2010) we discuss the symptoms of a “sick” internal environment and how to minimize the impact of these negative organizational influences and manage their occurrence and consequences.
members.cox.net/badworkplace/1index.html

HARASSMENT: WORKER’s GODLY DUTY?

Individuals who would probably scream the loudest if subjected to bullying, threatening remarks, or sexual harassment are often unaware that their own behavior, although nonsexual, is considered as harassment by their coworkers.

• CASE: What can you say when a coworker in the office constantly annoys everyone with her religious talks? A get-together at her home turns out to be a recruiting meeting for her church, not an office party. She sends emails and pamphlets and corners workers in the break room and at lunch to push her views. Conversations start as a pretext to something that’s office-related but always end up with her turning the subject to her religion and how we need to experience what she experiences. By the way, her boss goes to the same church.

Someone, preferably HR rather than a coworker, needs to inform her that harassment is not necessarily sexual in nature and that it can be subtle (shunning, annoying, or avoiding an individual) or very overt (propositioning or making explicit requests). Harassment of any kind can affect workers deeply, although some individuals may be able to cope with them so that they are not so disruptive of the work environment.

We personally have dealt successfully with religious harassment by simply telling the other person calmly, eye-to-eye, that we are happy that she has found the religion of her choice and that it brings her much joy – but that we also have made our choices, that we have our own religious views, and are not open to changing. “We respect your choices; please respect ours.”

If that doesn’t work, tell the person that you would appreciate her not discussing personal, non-work matters at work, as religion is a very private matter and that probably no one here is interested in changing his or her choice.

Notice that we do not suggest telling the person whether we attend church or believe in her God. All such personal questions should go unanswered as they are inappropriate for office discussion.

Have you experienced this type of workplace problem?  Let us hear from you.