Aspects of Workplace Violence Prevention

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Workplace settings present typical communities involving persons from different backgrounds coming together for a common purpose. The diversity in such platforms provides a synergetic capability that sees organizations survive and prosper. The standard expectation for the people operating in the same organization is that they coexist harmoniously by respecting one another. Nonetheless, personality differences and variations in power and interests among specific groups and individuals often lead to oppression and harassment. Such victimizations jeopardize the peaceful synchronicity among individuals operating in the entities, with the oppressed groups depicting underperformance signs. The following discussion thus delves into Central Michigan University’s (CMU) oppression policy by reviewing its strong points and possible revision capacities. The paper proceeds by first covering the various Workplace violence (WPV) categories and their physiognomies before turning to CMU’s situation.

Workplace Violence Categories

Violence at the place of work is not a new thing based on the available scholarly content regarding the subject. Unlike many people’s perception that WPV comes primarily from colleagues and senior officers, findings by different researchers portray a substantially complex picture. For example, Philpott (2019) provides at least five forms of workplace ferocity that individuals face. Each of these practices has unique traits, with variations mostly resulting from the nature of the involved parties, as described below.

Violence by Strangers

Strangers’ violence results from individuals without the organization and is often directed toward the association members. The matter involves verbal extortions, aggressive behaviors, or attacks by an aggressor lacking a legitimate connection to the place of work (Kumari et al., 2020). Theft is a common motive in WPV, where the assailant bears a lethal weapon, thus increasing the magnitude of harm to the victim (Chirico et al., 2022). Specific occupational groups exhibit increased risk toward this form of WPV, such as cab operators, gas station clerks, and individuals in late-night retail outlets (Philpott, 2019, p.21). Other groups experiencing increased chances of receiving violence from strangers are those working at night in isolated areas or carrying or transporting valuable items like cash. According to Chirico et al. (2022), physical security provision is a critical security measure adopted by an organization whose employees face this Type 1 WPV risk. Accordingly, strangers pose a significant threat to organizational employees, though their threats are manageable.

Violence by Clients or Customers

This Type 2 WPV involves physical attacks, verbal threats, or threatening conduct by an individual seeking services from an institute. Such clients include students, inmates, passengers, criminal suspects, and patients (Philpott, 2019, p.21). Employees offering direct services to the public generally have increased Type 2 WPV risk. According to Kumari et al. (2020), such professions include teachers, social service providers, medics, sales personnel, and law enforcement officers. Most of those facing a daily WPV threat are those handling inmates with an established violent history and those managing mental health patients. Protection against these latter groups of clients mainly comes from special training coupled with other unique control measures.

Violence by Coworkers

Physical attacks, frightening behavior, or verbal intimidations by a colleague amount to workplace ferocity by coworkers, categorized as Type 3 WPV. Violence from managers, supervisors, and present and past colleagues falls under this category. Revenge for perceived unfair treatment is a common source of oppression by coworkers, as per (Philpott, 2019, p.22). The violence may lead to dangerous injuries in case of physical attacks, while non-physical assaults lead to significantly reduced bodily harm. Employees’ training and the operation of stern workplace brutality policies are examples of measures employed to curb this form of WPV. However, intermittent revisions of such policies are paramount in case the organization intends to remain proactive on the matter.

Violence by Private Relations

WPV from an individual experiencing current or past personal relationships falls under this class. Scholars appreciate all forms of private relations, including those outside the workplace, as crucial intimate connections that affect employees’ security and performance. Accordingly, spouses, whether current or past, lovers, acquaintances, friends, and relatives all fall under the private relations group (Philpott, 2019, p.22). Psychological factors or perceived complications in the relationship are principal contributors to this kind of workplace oppression. Domestic violence following an individual to the place of work belongs to this Type 4 class of WPV. Violent partners often intimidate, physically harm, threaten, stalk, and sexually abuse their partners at work to feel in control. Effects of domestic violence on work include reduced productivity, increased care-cost, absenteeism, and amplified turnover rates (Hilton et al., 2022). Employers purposing to protect employees from this form of violence use training and organizational policies to realize their goals.

Violence by Terrorism

Terrorists target an entire establishment, rather than specific individuals, make this type of WPV unique. Nonetheless, deadly activities conducted by extremists pose great danger to employees and organization and needs prevention of response measures. According to McBride et al. (2022), terrorism mostly affects entities operating inside large commercial complexes as they aim to cause extreme chaos. They use bombs or deadly microbes to attack, leaving the individual organization with minimal countermeasures capacity. However, the national security teams take care of such rare occurrences, leaving institutes to mostly handle the other forms of WPV.

CMU Program

The U.S. exhibits precise WPV rules meant to protect its citizens against inhumane treatment at their places of work. Compliant organizations draw from the national guidelines to establish institute-specific policies that define and safeguard workers from WPV. Central Michigan University is a compliant academic institution in the republic that aims to keep its employees safe against violence. Accordingly, CMU has policies, procedures, and guidelines regarding workplace ferocity, Threat Management Team (TMT) operating procedures, and sexual and gender-based misconduct that the following work aims to appraise (Ross, 2013). The university’s WPV policy views violent and bellicose manners in the place of work as disorderly and antagonistic to the growth and preservation of an innocuous, productive, and compassionate setting. The institution’s WPV plans, and related measures, are projected to sustain efforts to offer a harmless campus work atmosphere. Moreover, the policy addresses both looming threats of WPV and the typical precursor conduct through an augmented cognizance of the subject and via intolerance for actions that may have been well-thought-out and acceptable in the past.

Strong Points of the Current Program

CMU exhibits significantly comprehensive WPV policies that guard workers against oppression at the place of work. The program has strengths and weaknesses, with diversity and descriptiveness being the most outstanding strong points. The following work uses the university’s specific policies to depict the two strong points.

Diversity

Diversity implies broadness, variety, or assortment and touches on policies’ ability to affect multiple issues. According to Kumari et al. (2020), the description of forms of violence and their features provide several ways that can arise. Consequently, any organization operating a single policy for the many violence forms risks failing. CMU beats such a problem by having several plans covering a unique workplace issue. Some of the university’s diverse violence strategies are described below.

Workplace Violence Guidelines

This program purposes to promote safety and peaceful operations for the staff employed by the university. The procedures covered by this policy comply with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) requirements for a harmless workplace. CMU’s WPV Guidelines offer general descriptions of various terms and the areas where the plan applies. For example, the policy defines various actions or activities that constitute WPV. The move is a critical strength in setting clear boundaries between good and ill. Any employee violating the laws is directly responsible for his or her actions without excuses (Kumari et al., 2020). The policy further explains the particular locations within which it applies. Such sites include all the physical accommodations owned or rented by the university and corridors and pathways connecting them. The WPV guidelines perform at least two roles: rebuking violent deeds at the place of work and curbing the antecedent behaviors leading to aggressive actions.

TMT Operating Procedures

CMU’s purpose in fighting WPV does not end at describing what violence implies and where the law applies. The organization is informed enough to establish a team of professionals responsible for the plans’ implementation and reviews. Such enforcement crew is referred to as TMT and exhibits specific mandates and duties in ensuring workers’ safety against WPV. This team’s operating procedure is a major part of the CMU’s violence strategies (Ross, 2013). It provides employees with a process flow of how to report victimization and the processes followed during different circumstances. The TMT procedures mainly serve to inform the organizational members what to do and boost transparency on the whole issue of fighting aggressive workplace behaviors. The human resources head and CMU’s police department are critical players in the TMT board (Ross, 2013). The professionals help workers to work in a secure atmosphere by acting fairly to all individuals. TMT operations procedures make it easy for someone in the university’s supreme board to face the consequences if one violates the set WPV rules.

Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct

CMU’s sexual and gender-based misconduct protection program protects the university’s workers against sex-related victimizations. Nowadays, many job places exhibit large numbers of sexes and genders initially alien to the employment sector. For example, the number of female employees in many American organizations, including educational institutions, almost matches that of males (O’Connor et al., 2021). The matter means that women today occupy positions previously dominated by men, implying significant pressure in several cultures. The pressure often leads to sex-based violence, with chauvinistic male customers verbally, behavior-wise, or physically oppressing a female salesperson or guard. CMU’s sexual and gender-based misconduct policy serves several roles, including a precise description of gender-related violence and the actions to take when one faces such. Therefore, the university achieves a substantially secure workplace through its diverse violence policies that keep every employee safe from multiple kinds of oppression.

Revision to the Current Program

Despite their supposed completeness, several possible changes can be made to CMU’s WPV policies. Currently, the processes and procedures appear substantially reactive, while loopholes can easily emerge if an officer serving as the field investigator chooses to act fraudulently. Almost all the university’s WPV laws require the victimized party to report the matter to the Central Michigan University Police Department (CMUPD) or the TMT board, depending on the underlying circumstances (Ross, 2013). The procedure following the initial notification takes significant time that can be used wrongly by an influential offender. Setting direct consequences that do not involve many investigations can help the policies work more effectively while excluding the current over-reliance on police and field investigators that are most likely to be bribed. Moreover, CMU’s sex-related violence seems feeble in that the policy allows the organization to leave the matter after ascertaining that the reported issue did not occur within the institution’s premises (Ross, 2013). The act somehow implies CMU’s blindness to serious plights affecting humanity, which the entity can intervene in and help find a solution, even as a corporate social responsibility move.

Policies, Procedures, Trainings, and Follow-up Process in the Revision

The WPV -TMT operating procedures provide an opportune area for revision in the CMU’s WPV policies. The plan provides strategies for reporting violence at the place of work and the various steps that the TMT implements until justice and sanity are re-established. This section and policy introduce substantial loopholes in the university’s war against WPV. Instead of following the procedure as it is currently, the present work proposes the inclusion of well-labeled unacceptable behaviors and their immediate consequences. Therefore, an oppressed employee will have to report the matter with reliable evidence and have the assaulter dealt with immediately without involving investigations. Accordingly, the new complaint management procedure outlined in the TMT operating procedures will look as follows:

Incident Reporting – WPV incidents shall be reported as follows:

If the situation presents an immediate danger, or if there are weapons visible or inferred, Call 911 and the TMT incidence office.
For circumstances not necessitating instant police participation, contact the following intake offices:
- Faculty Personnel Services (FPS): 989-774-4701
- Human Resources (HR): 989-774-2010
- CMU Police Department (PD): 989-774-3081
- CMU Online Administrative Center: 989-774-1308 (Ross, 2013).
The intake office getting the call will refer the occurrence to the HR manager for immediate action.
The HR manager, who receives and inspects the issued complaint and the provided evidence about an authentic or possible WPV incident in progress should:
- Take immediate and appropriate action to halt, diffuse or de-escalate the situation as long as it does not lead to a risk of personal harm.
- Immediately enforce the punishment action in collaboration with the CMUPD (Ross, 2013).

Conclusion

CMU’s WPV policies show the organization’s determination to promote employees’ safety at their place of work. The aspect sets the entity apart from many other non-compliant institutions that assume workers’ plights after setting laws on basic issues such as lateness, remuneration, good grooming, and employer’s property safety, among others. CMU’s ability to set policies against WPV challenges many other institutions to follow suit. Accordingly, the above discussion shows some of the university’s WPV policies’ strong points and the particular areas requiring amendments. The institution stands to benefit significantly by embracing beneficial changes in the policies for continuous growth, compliance with the law, and promotion of a safe workplace.

References

Chirico, F., Afolabi, A. A., Stephen, O., Ilesanmi, G. N., Ferrari, G., Szarpak, L., & Magnavita, N. (2022). Workplace violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 7(1), 14-35. Web.

Hilton, N. Z., Addison, S., Ham, E., C Rodrigues, N., & Seto, M. C. (2022). Workplace violence and risk factors for PTSD among psychiatric nurses: Systematic review and directions for future research and practice.Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 29(2), 186-203. Web.

Kumari, A., Kaur, T., Ranjan, P., Chopra, S., Sarkar, S., & Baitha, U. (2020). Workplace violence against doctors: Characteristics, risk factors, and mitigation strategies. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 66(3), 149. Web.

McBride, M. K., Carroll, M., Mellea, J. L., & Savoia, E. (2022). Targeted Violence.Perspectives on Terrorism, 16(2), 24-38. Web.

O’Connor, P., Hodgins, M., Woods, D. R., Wallwaey, E., Palmen, R., Van Den Brink, M., & Schmidt, E. K. (2021). Organizational characteristics that facilitate gender-based violence and harassment in higher education?Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 138. Web.

Philpott, D. (2019). Workplace Violence Prevention Handbook (2^nd edition). Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

Ross, G. E. (2013). Workplace violence-threat management team operating procedures. Central Michigan University.

Click Here To Order Now!