Can Workplace Violence Be Anticipated?

Reading Time: 10 mins

Workplace violence remains one of the leading causes of serious injury and death at work in the United States, and while it cannot be predicted with certainty, organizations can increasingly anticipate and mitigate it by understanding patterns, behaviorals, and environmental risk factors. With updated data, postCOVID insights, and maturing threatassessment practices, employers today have more tools than ever to reduce both the likelihood and impact of violent incidents.

Workplace violence is typically defined as an act or threat of physical violence, intimidation, harassment, or other threatening behavior that takes place in the nexus of a work environment. It can take many forms — from overt acts of physical assault to more “hidden” incidents like bullying, stalking, or sexual harassment — but companies that take steps to understand how and why these incidents occur can begin to identify vulnerabilities and develop comprehensive mitigation plans.

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), workplace violence remains one of the leading causes of fatal occupational injuries, with violent acts accounting for 733 worker deaths in 2024 and homicides making up more than 64% of those fatalities.

Nonfatal incidents are far more common: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has reported tens of thousands of serious, timeloss injuries every year due to assaults and other violent acts at work. Data from a recent employee survey indicates that 30% of employees have witnessed workplace violence and 15% have personally been targeted — both increases over the prior year.

Each year, roughly half a million employees miss more than 1.1 million workdays due to workplace violence, resulting in over $55 million in lost wages — before accounting for productivity losses, legal costs, and other downstream impacts.

In monetary terms, the impact is similarly staggering. The American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates that violence in and around healthcare facilities alone costs U.S. hospitals approximately $18.27 billion in 2023, including preevent prevention costs, postevent medical care, work loss, and infrastructure repair.

Broader analyses of workplace violence across sectors suggest that employers collectively incur hundreds of millions — and likely several billions — of dollars annually when factoring in lost productivity, legal expenses, property damage, increased insurance and security costs, and damage to reputation.

While the full impact of a workplace violence incident may differ across industries and depend on severity, in almost every case, a reactionary measure is more expensive and disruptive than a preemptive, preparative one. The good news is that there are proactive steps employers can take – grounded in current best practices – to better protect their employees, customers, and associates.

Acts of workplace violence are commonly categorized based on the perpetrator’s intent and affiliation with the organization, a framework that continues to guide OSHA, NIOSH, and security professionals.

The modern understanding of workplace violence does not limit itself to employees; it also encompasses the physical safety of customers, clients, contractors, and visitors who interact with the organization. Similarly, the “workplace” is no longer confined to a single physical facility: employers must now consider employees who travel, work at client sites, work from home, or operate in hybrid environments, where online harassment, cyberstalking, and threats over collaboration platforms can be precursors to physical violence or severe psychological harm.

Across all sectors and threat levels, companies developing a mitigation plan should carefully consider all elements of when, where, and how their employees conduct workrelated activities — onsite, offsite, and online. It is equally important to recognize that certain behaviors and patterns can constitute workplace violence even if they do not immediately result in physical harm, and employers can learn to identify potential risk factors and “violence accelerators” that may signal danger.

The FBI and other behavioralthreatassessment experts emphasize that there is no single profile of an “attacker,” but there are observable behaviors and conditions that frequently appear in cases of targeted violence.

Many of the risk factors highlighted in earlier guidance remain relevant today, including a history of violence or serious threats, childhood exposure to violence, substance abuse or misuse, personality disturbance or disorder, severe or untreated mental illness, history of suicidality or selfharm, firearm or edgedweapon access and familiarity, history of stalking, harassing, threatening, or menacing behavior, persistent noncompliance with limits, boundaries, or workplace rules, negative or unstable family dynamics and weak support systems, and increasing isolation and withdrawal from positive relationships.

These background factors should only be interpreted in context and over time, and they are most useful when they help inform how teams evaluate behaviors that may indicate movement toward violence rather than as a checklist for labeling someone “dangerous.”

Recent behavioral threatassessment resources developed jointly by the American Hospital Association and the FBI highlight that individuals who carry out targeted violence often move along a “pathway to violence,” progressing from a grievance or perceived injustice to violent ideation, to research and planning, preparation, and ultimately attackrelated behaviors.

Because each of these stages involves outward, observable conduct or communications, coworkers and supervisors can notice and report changes such as escalating grievances and fixation on perceived slights, talk or fantasies about using violence, unusual research into potential targets, weapons, tactics, acquisition of weapons or gear, rehearsals or security testing, and other behaviors that suggest preparation for an attack.

It is also worth noting that certain sectors and environments continue to face higher rates of workplace violence, including:

Other organizational factors can raise the likelihood that violence will go unrecognized or unaddressed, such as:

Understanding the mindset of a potential active shooter or attacker is no easy task, and great care must be taken to avoid labeling individuals as “future attackers” simply because one or two risk factors are present. However, most attacks do not emerge “out of the blue,” and attackers often display concerning outward behaviors, escalating grievances, and changes in demeanor that, if recognized and acted upon, can help organizations de-escalate situations or disrupt a developing pathway to violence.

Awareness of these potential indicators, paired with a structured plan for assessment and intervention, is now considered an integral component of a comprehensive workplace violence prevention strategy.

Once an organization has taken steps to understand the complexities of workplace violence, it can develop proactive policies and plans to address it. A comprehensive mitigation program should include both robust proactive controls and clearly defined reactive measures that are in place well before an incident occurs.

The most effective way to prevent workplace violence is to integrate avoidance of violence into the organization’s broader culture of safety and respect, with the tone set by leadership. Leaders can encourage employees to recognize that they all have a stake in protecting their colleagues, customers, and assets, and they can empower employees by clarifying what concerns to report, how to report them, and what will happen once a report is made.

Clearly written policies and procedures, supported by consistent enforcement and visible leadership commitment, help embed workplace violence prevention into day to day operations. Evidence from recent surveys suggests that having multiple, well communicated reporting channels — including anonymous hotlines, online portals, formal complaint processes, and whistleblower protections — encourages more employees to report early warning signs and makes it more likely that issues will be addressed before they escalate.

Streamlined reporting mechanisms and clear response protocols are particularly important when organizations face higherrisk scenarios such as hostile terminations, workplace disputes, or threats connected to domestic violence. In a hybrid environment, this also includes clear expectations and processes for reporting concerning behavior observed in virtual meetings, email, messaging platforms, or social media.

A risk and security assessment remains a critical foundation for any workplace violence program. This assessment typically includes a review of physical security vulnerabilities — such as lighting, access control, doors and locks, visitor management, and emergency communication systems — along with process and culture vulnerabilities, such as how complaints are handled and how conflict is managed.

Organizations that understand their risk profile and vulnerabilities before an incident occurs are better positioned to allocate resources, prioritize controls, and respond effectively when a crisis arises. In some jurisdictions, such as California, regulations now have specific requirements for employers to conduct workplace violence hazard assessments and maintain written violence prevention plans, signaling a broader regulatory trend toward more formalized, documented programs across industries.

Based on their culture, industry, and unique risk profile, organizations should create comprehensive emergency action plans that clearly outline roles and responsibilities, communication protocols, and procedures for recognizing, reporting, and responding to potential and actual incidents of violence. These plans should address a range of scenarios — from verbal threats and harassment to active assailant situations — and should be coordinated with local law enforcement and emergency responders when appropriate.

An effective training program educates employees on:

Emergency plans and training should be updated and “stresstested” regularly, using tabletop exercises, drills, and scenariobased training that reflect current threats and lessons learned. Organizations are wellserved by designating crossfunctional teams that perform effectively under pressure and by ensuring that team members understand their responsibilities in a crisis.

A wellestablished and wellcommunicated plan can help companies mobilize quickly and effectively, reducing the likelihood of poor execution, injuries, panic, misinformation, and loss of trust among employees and external stakeholders.

In the course of normal operations, organizations will encounter situations that require both proactive and reactive measures — such as individual threats, troubling behavioral patterns, or conflicts tied to a specific employee, client, or worksite. In these instances, many organizations now turn to formal Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) teams.

BTAM teams are typically responsible for:

These teams are generally comprised of representatives from leadership, HR, Security or Risk Management, Legal, and, when appropriate, external partners such as mental health professionals and law enforcement. Recent guidance from the AHA and the FBI underscores that BTAM programs are most effective when they are formalized, supported by policy, resourced adequately, and integrated into broader corporate workplace safety solutions and wellbeing initiatives.

A formal workplace violence prevention policy is essential for any organization — but a strong company culture that supports, reinforces, and lives that policy is often what makes the difference between a paper program and meaningful risk reduction.

To foster a positive culture that actively deters workplace violence, employers can:

In highstress environments, particularly healthcare, social services, public safety, and customerfacing roles, organizations are increasingly combining violenceprevention efforts with broader mentalhealth, resilience, and burnoutprevention initiatives. By addressing workload, communication, and psychological safety alongside physical security, employers can reduce the underlying tensions and frustrations that sometimes contribute to aggression and conflict.

Workplace violence costs lives, affects morale, reduces productivity, disrupts business continuity, and carries significant financial and reputational consequences — but it can be mitigated by organizations that address it proactively. By taking deliberate steps to understand and mitigate the risk of workplace violence, organizations can significantly improve the safety and wellbeing of their employees, their customers, and their operations.

Updated April 08, 2026