Workplace violence: “an evolving definition”

Arriving at a universally agreed upon definition of workplace violence is difficult at best; some might say impossible. We are challenged by divergent cultures, the sheer scope of reference and the number of terms used to describe the phenomenon of workplace violence. Terms used include, “mobbing” (Leymann, 1996[1]; Zapf et al., 1996[2]), “harassment” (Björkqvist et al., 1994[3]), “bullying” (Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996[4]; Rayner, 1997[5]; Vartia, 1996[6]), “victimization” (Einarsen and Raknes, 1997[7]), and “psychological terror” (Leymann, 1990a[8]).

As a result, a general definition of workplace violence has yet to be agreed upon within the international community. A first concerted effort towards reaching a common understanding was made at an Expert Meeting organized by the European Commission in Dublin in May 1994, where the following definition was proposed[9],

“Incidents where persons are abused; threatened or assaulted in circumstances related to their work, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well-being and health.”  (Wynne et al, 1997)[10]

Later, a comprehensive and authoritative World Health Organization (WHO) document entitled World Report on Violence and Health defines violence as:

“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.” (WHO, 2002)[11]

Subsequently, the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Code of Practice in Service Sectors, tabled their definition.

“Any action, incident or behaviour that departs from reasonable conduct in which a person is assaulted, threatened, harmed, injured in the course of, or as a direct result of, his or her work” (ILO, 2004)[12]

As one can see from these early definitions, both overt and covert behaviour is classified as violence, taking into consideration indirect psychological acts such as “bullying”, “mobbing” , “harassment” and “intimidation”. Two additional elements of these definitions are worth of noting. First, the “workplace” is not simply the “physical work site” but includes any work-related “activity”, and secondly, the “perpetrator” of violence can include individuals from either inside or outside the workplace. Although mute, these distinctions are important when arriving at a more complete understanding of workplace violence.

Workplace violence as an occupational health and safety concern in Canada has evolved in much the same way as in other jurisdictions. As noted in my article entitled “Workplace Violence:

Transcending the Emotional Debate”(August 14, 2013), public concern about workplace violence is commonly prompted and fueled by well publicized incidents of abuse. In Canada, we need only recall the tragedies associated with Pierre LeBrun[13], Lori Dupont[14], Eric Allen Kirkpatrick[15], Dr. Valery Fabrikant[16] and Marc Lépine[17]. In each case, the offence occurred in a workplace and galvanized public opinion, which in turn pressed legislators to act. It is no coincidence that only days after the Lori Dupont inquest, the Ontario Government tabled Bill 168, a motion to revise their Occupational Health and Safety Act. Similarly, the LeBrun case influenced the Federal government to make changes to the Canada Labour Code making it the responsibility of Federally Regulated employers to “take the prescribed steps to prevent and protect against violence in the work place”[18].

The debate over how to define workplace violence in Canada has hinged on two questions, which are now intrinsic to provincial occupational health and safety acts. These questions are (1) is violence “physical”, or can it include “psychological” acts of aggression, and (2) where does the violence originate.

Over the past decade, occupational health and safety acts have gradually begun to converge, as incidents of workplace violence and abuse become public. Although definitions may differ in wording, legislators are slowly coming to understand that violence is both physical and/or psychological in nature, and can originate from any source, either inside or outside the workplace. Because of the circumstances surrounding Lori DuPont’s death, protections against domestic violence are also included in some occupational health and safety legislation[19], most notably in Ontario where the incident occurred. I will have more to say about the relationship between domestic violence and the workplace in later articles of this series.

Although one should be mindful of how workplace violence is defined in your jurisdiction, the following definition of the International Labour Organization (IOL) captures the essence of workplace violence as we have come to know it.    

“Any incident, in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work. These behaviors would originate from customers, co-workers at any level of the organization. This definition would include all forms of harassment, bullying, intimidation, physical threats/assaults, robbery and other intrusive behaviors” (IOL, 1999)

Suggested Reading:

Violence in the Workplace: Prevention Guide (3^rd Edition), the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 2010 – 1 (800) 668-4284 (Toll-free Canada & US), www.ccohs.ca

Understanding Workplace Violence, Paludi, Michele; Nydegger, Rudy & Paludi, Carmen, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2006

 

 

Next Article: 

“Bullying” and “Harassment”: Terms That Confuse