With the increase in hostility towards big business & threats coming from both internal & external sources, telling the difference is critical.
Almost every day the media is full of stories of big business making huge profits with their senior leader’s salaries being published.
At the same time the stories of financial hardship are increasing, and anyone who accessing Sales Navigator will be hard pressed to miss the daily reports of these big business making redundancies.
The repercussions of these and other challenges is an increased hostility from both internal and external sources including current and former employees, disgruntled consumers and activists.
These threats can be categorised as workplace harassment and violence together with insider threats.
The problem is, how do you tell the difference between those who are angry from those who are potentially dangerous and escalating towards some form of attack?
Most corporate security teams, whilst excellent at what they do, are rarely equipped with a proven methodology to identify and defuse these threats. This means unnecessary expense, anxiety and possible legal issues are experienced through misidentification and management of problem people.
So, what are the top 5 tips for identifying the person who is escalating and worthy of further attention?
It is a hugely researched subject, and the results are scientifically proven….so this isn’t guess work.
- Very few people who pose a genuine physical threat communicate threats to their intended target unless they`ve previously been in an intimate relationship. So, a direct threat is a poor indicator of an impending issue
- Leaked verbal, written, or communicated threats to a 3rd party, especially if there is evidence of specific plans to harm or kill others are expressed. Leakage precedes 60-90% of attacks.
- A person who uses multiple different communications methods to express their grievance, such as email, social media, phone calls should be treated as a person of concern.
- A person of makes physical approaches and/or travels to confront the intended target should be treated as a person of concern.
- Any behaviour where an obsessive fixation on a targeted individual or group is evident must be taken seriously.
Behaviour is generally a better indicator that language, hence why behavioural threat management is such an effective method of identifying and managing persons of concern.
