I suppose the first kind of workplace violence was the old-fashioned workplace fight. Fights still happen at work. Sometimes, they involve some pushing and shoving. Sometimes, blows are thrown and landed. Fights obviously aren’t what you want going on at work–ever.
Almost all employers have rules against fighting on the job. If you have a handbook, it’ll be in the handbook. Sometimes, a statement about fighting and its consequences are posted in a breakroom or some other place where employees congregate. Often, these anti-fighting policies will say that fighting at work is grounds for immediate discharge. This week’s tip relates to a way of handling the workplace fight in a way other than immediate discharge.
If there’s a fight and you’re called in to deal with it, you’re not going to be a good position to evaluate the situation as it should be evaluated. You’ll have at least two people telling you different things. You’ll probably have witnesses who won’t agree on what happened. It’s possible that everyone involved in the fight should be fired, but you won’t know at that moment. Therefore, the better approach is to suspend those involved until you can conduct a reasonable investigation.
Tell the suspended employees you will talk with them to get their version of what happened. Then you’ll talk with the witnesses. Then you’ll evaluate the situation based on what you’ve learned and make a decision. You may decide to fire all the fighters. You may decide to lengthen the suspension or impose some other form of discipline. You may decide to fire only one of the involved employees. For example, if one employee slugs another without warning, I wouldn’t think you’d fire both of them. That’s the trouble with a rule that calls for the immediate discharge of anyone involved in a fight.
Fighting at work should be taken seriously and dealt with promptly and appropriately. That will necessarily involve letting things cool off until a thorough, albeit quick, investigation can occur and a reasonable decision about the fate of the fighters can be reached. Remember, too, that you’re setting a precedent, and that if a precedent has already been set, you need to take that into account in making your final decision. Consistency is important when it comes to fighting at work, just as it is with every other workplace event.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Beverly // May 2, 2008 at 10:38 am
I totally agree with your statements and course of action.
2 John Phillips // May 2, 2008 at 10:44 am
Thanks for weighing in, Beverly. Glad we see eye to eye on this.
3 Michael Franck // May 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Excellent article. Fair and equitable. Many managers/companies either ignore the issue or overreact, but this article takes a logical view that when an event occurs, an employer should take the time and effort to determine what exactly happened and act responsibly to their employees. Thank you for this sensible piece.
4 John Phillips // May 2, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Michael, I appreciate the compliment. The ignore-overreact dichotomy is a good way to look at this subject, as well as a number of others. Thanks for you input.
5 Brian Sawyer // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Great article. One of the things that I have noticed (being in the background screening industry) is that most problems with workplace violence start with people who have violent pasts. So without sounding too much like a commercial for my industry…a thorough background check can help prevent a lot of these instances.
6 John Phillips // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for your comment. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Leave a Comment