RiskUKAugust2017

The Security Institute’s View
relationship between the perpetrator and the
victim. These are intrusive violence (where
there’s no legitimate business for the
perpetrator at the site), consumer violence (the
perpetrators of which initially have a legitimate
reason to be present, but then act violently),
relationship violence (whereby a relationship
between parties, such as ex-colleagues or
partners, exists) and, last but not least,
organisational violence (which is violence
performed by the organisation, such as through
poor conditions, poor management or poor
culture). This model has been in use for many
years, but offers little detail of practical use in
the management of the problem. Knowing that
a customer may present a threat of violence
doesn’t do much to assist in reducing the risks.
Model of understanding
To this end, it’s worth introducing a new model
for understanding the nature of violence in the
workplace. Focusing on the actual causes of
violent conduct, we can identify seven different
types collectively known as the V7 Model.
Functional violence refers to violence being
employed as a ‘means to an end’, such as in the
perpetration of a crime. In contrast, predatory
violence is perpetrated as its own end and can
be used to refer to acts of terrorism, active
shooters, rape, stalking and other incidents.
Social violence describes situations where
violence is used as social currency, such as in
gangs where it’s employed to increase
reputation or credibility or in incidents of
bullying. Intimate violence takes place between
individuals where there’s an existing intimate
relationship, such as when situations of
domestic abuse enter the workplace.
Impaired violence refers to actions by people
who may be under the influence of drink or
drugs or otherwise suffering from mental
illness. Expressive violence refers to the actions
of individuals who struggle to communicate
their needs (due to disability, for example).
Finally, reactive violence describes situations
where violence is triggered as a response to
stimuli and can include customer outbursts as
well as acts of self-defence.
This typology of violence is based on the
perceived motivations or intentions of the
perpetrator according to their observable
actions and behaviours. For greater context,
each of these types is then subject to a further
“Shocking incidents of physical violence are not
commonplace, yet gain far more attention than the day-today,
lower-level negative workplace behaviours”
range of influences. These include situational
variables (influences present in the actual
‘moment’) as well as personal variables, such
as psychology, personality, worldview,
pathology and history.
There are also social factors (referring to the
ways in which the participants engaged in the
event function within wider society). Finally,
there needs to be a reflection on the
organisational factors present in line with the
concept of organisational violence.
Each type of violence in the V7 Model is
significantly different in purpose and so
requires distinct mitigation methods that are
contextually appropriate. What works for
reducing one type might well exacerbate
another. It can also be argued that an incident
could include a number of these types of
violence, such as an incident of intimate
violence also including impaired and predatory
types. As such, it would be worth planning for
what are felt to be the most predominant types
and designing mitigations as required.
The V7 Model also affords us a solid
foundation for a reporting scheme, given that it
allows us to respect the subjectivity of the
victim in describing what they felt the reason
for the incident was, as well as supporting a
parallel root cause analysis process.
Common mitigations
Common mitigations employed for violence
management by organisations are usually
focused on training. There are several problems
with this approach, which lends itself to
reducing liability through compliance with the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 instead of
actually trying to resolve the problems.
There’s no academic evidence to suggest that
physical intervention training is effective, while
similar claims have recently been made about
de-escalation training. Further, it can be argued
that, in focusing on training of this nature, the
organisational response to violence is more
violence. There are also commentators who
consider that training staff in conflict
management indirectly blames them for
contributing to situations in the first place.
At this point, it may be worth pausing to
consider our general approach to violence.
Organisations focus on developing policies and
procedures that centre heavily on what’s not
acceptable. Anyone who has ever had any life
coaching will be familiar with the statement
that ‘what we resist persists’.
It might be time, then, to switch our focus to
a ‘positive peace’ model wherein we emphasise
the behaviours and culture in which we wish to
work instead of ‘fighting the fighting’.
48
www.risk-uk.com