Is increased turnover a consequence?
In the report, Employee Perceptions of Federal Workplace Violence, MSPB discussed the results of a 2010 survey of 42,000 Federal employees on the incidence of physical assault, threats of assault, harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the Federal workplace. That report noted that 13 percent of respondents reported observing such an incident in the previous two years. Current and former Federal employees were by far the most frequent perpetrators of violence in the workplace—these individuals were responsible for 54 percent of observed incidents, more than all other1 perpetrators combined.
Fortunately, only 16 percent of the violent incidents perpetrated by Federal employees resulted in either physical injury or damage to or loss of property—the lowest proportion among all perpetrators. This finding means that the vast majority of incidents that survey respondents observed likely involved threats, harassment, intimidation, and bullying rather than outright physical violence.
Regardless of the severity of the incident, workplace violence is a serious matter and can be detrimental for its victims and observers. The employer also experiences adverse effects. As noted in our report, the costs of workplace violence to employers include restoring property, providing psychological care to victims and other employees, improving security, and attempting to repair an organization’s tarnished public image. Also, some research has found that the stress and strain caused by workplace violence are strongly related to high employee turnover, reduced productivity, and lower employee commitment. In fact, we found lower levels of employee engagement in employees who have observed acts of workplace violence as well as in employees who don’t believe their organization is doing all that is necessary to ensure their safety on the job.
Surprisingly, though, based on our survey data, witnessing workplace violence did not appear to affect employee turnover rates. In fact, the percentage of our survey population who voluntarily retired, resigned, transferred, or were reassigned from 2009 through 2011 was the same among those who witnessed workplace violence as among those who did not witness workplace violence—25 percent. Further, this turnover percentage was consistent regardless of the identity of the perpetrator of the observed violence.
These findings are challenging to explain. Perhaps turnover rates are minimally affected due to Federal employees’ typically high commitment to their jobs and public service. As we have reported periodically, Federal employees, on average, exhibit a great affinity for the type of work they do and for the mission of their employing agencies; perhaps this affinity contributes to employees not wanting to leave their jobs even in the face of serious stress in the work environment. Since the majority of the workplace violence that our survey respondents observed was non-violent, perhaps the behaviors were not perceived as egregious enough to push employees out of their organizations.
Regardless of why turnover rates appear to be little affected by witnessing workplace violence, agencies need to be on guard; they must be careful not to interpret this finding as a reason for complacency. There are steps that organizations can take that may minimize the occurrence of violent incidents on the job. These steps may be even more important in organizations where the victims of workplace violence are less inclined to leave. As noted above, research suggests these employees will be less engaged and ultimately less productive.
[Reprinted from Issues of Merit, February 2013, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. To view MSPB’s entire report, visit their website at www.mspb.gov.]
Among the recommendations in MSPB’s report to help reduce the number of violent incidents perpetrated by Federal employees are that Federal agencies: (1) foster organizational cultures that do not tolerate violent behaviors; (2) appropriately screen job applicants; (3) train employees on the warning signs of violent behavior and what to do if those signs are observed; (4) resolve serious conflicts in the workplace before they escalate into violent incidents; and (5) allow organizational factors such as geographic location, mission, occupational mix, and customer base to drive workplace violence prevention efforts. What do you think of these recommendations? Do you have other suggestions to eliminate these growing problem?