Forums
Spotting Trouble
Recruiting & Staffing
Spotting Trouble
Exchange ideas about sourcing, screening, interviewing, finding passive candidates, measuring your results, and more.
The tragedy in Virginia is haunting me but also causing me to wonder if there were any steps that could have been taken predict or prevent. Another thing I ponder is the motivation the quiet student h
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56Discussion:DiscussionId33162
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Spotting Trouble
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/17/2007 2:20 PM EDT
|
Posts: 32
First: 3/1/2000 Last: 6/12/2007 |
The tragedy in Virginia is haunting me but also causing me to wonder if there were any steps that could have been taken predict or prevent. Another thing I ponder is the motivation the quiet student had for harming nearly 50 lives within 2 hours.
Without more information, I do remember the story of the graduate student at one of the UC schools. He was led to believe that with just a little more work, he would graduate and receive a full professorship. In reality, the faculty had determined they would not graduate him and no amount of work he did would lead to his fulfillment. When he finally learned this actuality, he killed his supervising instructor. I say this as it may be a possibility for yesterday's quiet killer student. He may have learned that he was about to fail the last required class. We just don't know. I believe there are tests for screening for killer personality. But in the case of the UC grad student, it seems it was circumstantial and not something that was inherently in his personality. Who has responsibility for screening for these traits. And if they are not there but extreme circumstances could cause them to come about, it would seem that intervention should be done in order to avert drastic actions. |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/18/2007 2:21 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 3870
First: 2/12/2002 Last: 11/2/2009 |
Nobody is really responsible for "screening" these traits. Even if you did screen for them, what could you do about them? You can't commit someone to a mental institution without their or a guardian's consent, and you certainly can't imprison them because they failed to pass a personality test that many would argue is little more than junk science.
|
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 1:22 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 13
First: 7/4/2005 Last: 11/20/2007 |
This is indeed a tragedy. I think the issue is the sociopaths among us. Obviously criminal background checks are not junk science and one way to let you spot somome who may pose a risk. I would say a sociopath is someone who is unable to empathize with the feelings of others, has feelings of over inflated self-importance, anger that the world does not aknowkodge his talents, and a lack of conscience when it comes to acting in a way that hurts or injuries the feelings of others. Now there are diffrent levels of this. At a low level, the guy may just be a hustler or scam artist who cons people out of money, but not violent. The problem is that these folks know how to fake it and ususally make good first impressions, it's only the people that have ongoing relationships that see the undependability, anger, and lack of conscience. It's always hard to spot these types but I have found one rule that generally helps. In every company there are a few people that are just honestly nice and caring and tend to get along with almost everyone - these people make great barometers for troubled employees. When I ask "Bill" who gets along with evryone, "How do you feel about Joe, do you trust him?" Now, this is total junk science, but I have found that there are some people that you have to really be a jerk for them not to be liked by "Bill" - because "Bill" tends to get along with almost evryone. When "Bill" does not like "Joe" I start asking other key people, not to gossip, but to see if there is converging evidence that "Joe" may be the wolf in sheep's clothing that the company does not need. That is not to say he will be violent, but taken to an extreme people that feel self-important, superior, and angry are more likely to act out. The guy who says it's never my fault or they are all just jerks is really showing his hand and I say time to build a solid case why he needs to go. Now using that measure some might say that Bob Nardelli (Home Depot) or AL Dunlap (former CEO at Sunbeam) were sociopaths - although they did not violently attack people. It's the angry loner with no connections or social conscience who I think poses the greatest threat. I am not saying this is science or sound HR practice, just what I have seen in my career working with people. I hope this adds to the dialogue and I welcome and respect different views that may challeng this notion. I think geting as many views out there as possible may be a good way for us all to add a tool or two to our toolbox. My prayers and and thoughts are with the families of all those who ever lost a loved one to the violent actions of someone else. Never lose sight that most people are decent and caring.
Best Tom |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 2:34 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 40
First: 6/28/2005 Last: 2/26/2008 |
Cho appears to be a complex, long-term failure of the socialization process. Though teasing and taunting were reported in his background, so were efforts to reach out and include him--some by classmates and victims, continuing up until shortly before his shooting rampage. He concocted an elaborate plot, with dozens of steps going back months or years. No expert I've heard (I'm trained as an anthropologist myself) has offered a single diagnostic test for "intentions" like Cho had and acted upon. Democrats and Republicans, according to an appearance by senator Chuck Schumer, are likely to pass a simple, single-purpose piece of legislation creating a federal database to record and access names / identifications of people who have, before a judge, been determiend to be a danger to themselves / others. It's a step, but identity falsification, or going to someone who's not a licensed gun dealer are obvious work-arounds. No prevention protocol will ever be adequate, unfortunately, to pre-empt these people before they act. It's a risk that can be reduced a bit, but never eliminated. |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 2:46 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 28
First: 3/27/2007 Last: 4/25/2008 |
The laws that may or may not be enacted because this tragedy may have a bigger impact than just protecting the public. For instance, what if they do create this database that provides names of those who are considered a danger to themselves and/or others and those people who are on the list take classes and great strives to change their behavior. Furthermore, what were the circumstances that lead to their name being placed on such a list to begin with? Sometimes this type of list is very subjective and we all need to be careful when thinking about instituting these types of policies. People should not be punished for their predisposition to certain types of behavior, especially when they are trying to prevent the bad behavior in the first place. I am not saying that the man in Virginia was one of these people, but I am concerned about a national list of the type discussed above.
Thanks. |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 2:51 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 18
First: 2/13/2007 Last: 12/26/2007 |
The FBI published a comprehensive report on preventing and dealing with workplace violence, including a "what works" and "what doesn't work" discussion. Here's the link: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/violence.pdf.
And here is a related link from OSHA: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/. I hope this is helpful. |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 5:55 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 36
First: 4/4/2006 Last: 1/27/2009 |
Something this thread seems to overlook is that the shooter displayed signs of being a very sick man for some time. Sick. His whole self-image was one of fantasy. I believe he was a double victim of his own illness, obviously because he ended his own life but also because nobody effectively acted upon their observations to ensure that a sick man got treated. Although he was referred for professional help at one point, no one monitored his continued care. Were his family and friends enlisted to support him through treatment? Did anyone explain his illness to them or were they left in the dark like most families? Fortunately, most mental illness results in silent personal suffering without spilling over into violence. But unfortunately, as a society we still haven't come to a point where the treatment of mental illness is as socially acceptable as the treatment of cancer. Until we do, the loss of life will continue. One at a time, or in groups of 50, it's still a wasteful and unnecessary tragety.
The best defence in our workplaces is to de-stigmatize mental illness so we can talk openly about it and address it compassionately, without embarrassment or fear or blame. |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 6:46 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 32
First: 3/1/2000 Last: 6/12/2007 |
It's interesting that as I read the responses right now, I'm reflecting on the events that occurred at my residence around 6 AM today. I live in a shared environment and one housemate has demonstrated the inflated sense of self, complete with bait and put-down comments, shoving and intentionally walking into me (I'm her target), and has openly expressed little regard for a heart condition I have.
However, this morning she went through her ritualistic mumbling and muttering that I've politely called "affirmations". They went on before her shower, during, after, after, after. I finally shut the door of the bathroom in an effort to drown out the harangue. I was confronted. I was beaten with a cast iron fy pan about the arms and shoulders. Another housemate tried to instill order and the beating abated. But it resumed some 15 minutes later with no provocation. This time about my shoulders. And it occurred to me that just inches higher and it would have been my head that was being cracked with the pan. The third housemate refused to call the police on my behalf on the second assault. The "affirmation" roommate called the police (my cell phone was stolen and hasn't been replaced; couldn't make a call) and then expressed satisfaction at her acts -- just as one of those who has posted noted is the form of what we speak. When "affirmation" roommate and I moved in (on the same day), I realized the personality type one of you mentioned as one that Bill would not accept. There's a long trail of reports of aberrant behavior to the landlord. This is the first physical incident. I keep wondering how this woman has succeeded in getting herself employed *anywhere*, much less at a school. I look forward to reading the content at the links one of the posters has supplied. Normally, these details would have been kept private. But your comments brought forth the very fresh incident. There are many places where we need to be very careful of those about us. |
|
|
Spotting Trouble
posted at 4/24/2007 8:23 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1
First: 4/24/2007 Last: 4/24/2007 |
I've only been working in the HR field directly as an HR manager for 1.5 years. Prior to this I was a therapist in a clinical practice for over 16 years. The question of can we screen people for violence is a difficult one. There are definately a variety of testing profiles that are positively correlated with the increased potential of outward acts of violence. However, what they do not tell you is when and how the person might become violent? In other words, one would not be able to predict that on a particular day this person will act in a particularly violent manner. The other difficulty with most screening tools that may be used in an attempt to predict violence is a high number of "false positives". These would be people who may have a certain profile, but never become violent. Unfortunately, about 2% of the population are sociopaths, but not nearly that many kill others. We also have to be careful in HR about using screening tools that can be used to diagnose mental disorders due to the ADA. As far as I know, there is no screening tool that can be used by HR professionals that could have predicted the Virginia Tech incident or a workplace incident in a reliable manner and the law does not allow for people being institutionalized without imminent threat of harm to self or others.
All that being said, there are some warning signs. Some of those are an obsession with a potential victim or group (rich kids in the VA Tech case), feeling alienated and abused by others-whether real or imagined, the heightened sense of self-esteem and entitlement to do what they wish, previous psychotic or suicidal episodes, poor self care such as not bathing and wearing clean clothes, violence toward others or objects on a smaller scale such as fighting or destroying property, drug and alcohol use, or going off prescribed psychotropic medication. When I see some of these warning signs I begin to get concerned. The more warning signs,usually the more imminent the potential violent act is. Any direct threat toward a specific individual should be reported to police. In the post above where the writer was assualted, that certainly should be reported. My best guess and concern is that the violence will become worse if action isn't taken. Calling the police or family members is certainly no guarentee that appropriate action willbe taken, but it often offers the best hope of getting the person help because they do have the authority to do a short term commitment in most states. Also, the websites mentioned in a prior post are very good and have great ideas for employers. |
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Spotting Trouble
