Workplace Violence Prevention Series — Part III
In Part I, we explored what happens when employees stay silent.
In Part II, we talked about when concern becomes responsibility.
I am in a unique position, having worked with hundreds of HR professionals around the globe on investigations involving threats, potential threats, and acts of violence in the workplace.
Across industries, cultures, and regulatory environments, one pattern is consistent.
What appears small on the surface is often far larger underneath.
I refer to this as the Iceberg Issue. A visible issue that masks a much larger subsurface risk, and where organizations often fall into a dangerous foreseeability gap.
That is why I believe so strongly in process over presentation.
From both a risk and legal standpoint, the expectations are clear.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration General Duty Clause, employers are required to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards, including foreseeable acts of violence.
Once concern is raised, the organization no longer has the option to wait.
There is a duty to act.
A client reached out to us after an associate reported an interaction she could not fully explain but could not ignore.
A manager asked a female employee to come outside and help start his car, which was parked in an alley behind the building. She said something about his tone felt off. Trusting her instincts, she called, stayed on the phone with her husband as she walked outside.
When the manager realized she was on the phone, he became agitated and abruptly asked who she was talking to. He then calmed down when she said it was her husband. She got in the car as he requested, and the car started immediately.
On paper:
• No explicit threat
• No clear policy violation
• Easy for someone to say, “This is no big deal.”
But the associate did not feel good about the situation so trusted her instincts and reported it.
HR, while not certain there was a problem, chose to investigate anyway and contacted us looking for some guidance.
That decision mattered.
Initially, there was not much to go on. I knew something was not right, but there was little evidence on the surface.
Still, I recommended a basic step: reviewing the manager’s internet usage over the prior sixty days.
What surfaced was extensive pornography use, typically late in the evening after others had left the building. Critically, the timing aligned with when the manager called the associate outside.
At that moment, the organization moved from surface level concern to foreseeable risk.
When we interviewed the manager, we did not disclose why we were there.
Instead, I asked a foundational question I recommend to anyone conducting interviews:
“Why do you think I am here talking to you today?”
Important clarification: What I am sharing here is a high-level summary. The actual interview was significantly more in-depth, structured, and deliberate, involving extensive follow-up questioning, corroboration, and documentation.
During the interview, the manager admitted to submitting thousands of dollars in fraudulent expense reports, misconduct that had previously gone undetected.
As the conversation continued, I asked again what another reason for our presence might be. He then acknowledged that after viewing pornography on company equipment, he would often contact a prostitute to meet him in his car behind the office building.
When I later asked why he had called the associate outside to help with his car, he replied, “I needed help with my car.” He paused, then nervously added, “You know what’s funny? I just realized it was the same night I could not get in touch with the person who was supposed to meet me at my car, but that’s not the reason I called her.”
That was the critical moment.
He made that connection on his own. It was not suggested through questioning. He independently acknowledged the timing and the relationship between his behavior and his decision to call the associate outside.
What began as a manager asking an associate to help with a car ultimately revealed compromised judgment, escalating misconduct, and clear behavioral risk.
That is the Iceberg Issue in action.
If the associate had ignored her instincts
If HR had dismissed the concern as insignificant
If leadership had relied on assumptions instead of disciplined process
The organization could have been facing:
• An assault
• Severe legal exposure
• Regulatory scrutiny
• Reputational damage
• Executive accountability questions
Most HR and risk leaders have seen similar situations where nothing serious happened.
But risk is not measured by frequency.
It is measured by impact and foreseeability.
You only have to be wrong once.
Sound decisions and sound investigations change everything.
If someone did nothing wrong, they want the investigation because it clears their name.
If they did, the investigation makes the seriousness unmistakably clear.
Threat response is not about overreacting.
It is about meeting your duty to act.
Because what looks small on the surface may be far larger underneath and ignoring that iceberg can sink an organization.
“Organizations that lead with discipline, curiosity, and courage do not just reduce risk. They build trust, resilience, and cultures where people feel safe to speak up.”- Michael Peterson, The Orsus Group
Author: Mike Peterson