Corporate Violence Mandates Screening : Employer issues: With the number of workplace assaults on the rise, companies need to turn to pre-employment psychological testing to head off violence--and save lives.

Over the past three years, at least seven people have been killed in workplace assaults in San Diego County. Nationwide, the figures are approaching 100. It has happened in Vermont, New Jersey and even Kentucky. Shocking as it may seem, incidents of corporate violence are definitely on the rise.

Some blame the shootings on the recession, on acquisitions, mergers or downsizing, but the truth is that our society has become increasingly violent. And from time to time that violence will rear its ugly head at work sites. Sadly, it is unlikely to change in the months and years ahead.

Using firearms to settle job disputes is the act of an emotionally troubled individual. They lack good reasoning and judgment, perhaps due to drugs or alcohol. Or, perhaps when they grew up they were victims of violence, and learned to use it as a way to solve problems. These individuals may seem well-adjusted during an employment interview. They can appear to function adequately, sometimes for long periods of time, particularly in routine, predictable jobs. But they are walking time bombs. Frequently they lack the capacity to adapt to change. Their coping abilities are underdeveloped. They blame others for their behavior.

It may take weeks or months after hiring before such individuals show their true personality. Jose Maldonado, the San Marcos factory worker suspected of killing his supervisor recently, reportedly harbored hostility for nine months. In the case of the General Dynamics shooting, the man charged in the killing had been an employee for more than 20 years.

But the tendency toward violence was there. The shooting was probably not the result of a single incident. Robert Mack, the suspect in the General Dynamics killing, was not laid off--he was fired. And by law, General Dynamics was required to discuss performance problems with him several times, undoubtedly with tremendous documentation.

Fortunately, the tendency toward violence is detectable with psychological testing. That is not to say that testing is 100% accurate. Human behavior is too complex for prediction to ever be perfect.

But research shows that the best method for screening potential violence is pre-employment psychological testing. It is more exact than interviews, resumes and background investigations combined.

Pre-employment psychological testing is not new. In fact, it was very popular until the late 1960s. Before then, more than 75% of Fortune 500 companies used some form of testing. Then came the landmark case of Griggs vs. Duke Power. Griggs was a black man who applied for a janitorial position with the Duke Power Co. in Durham, N. C., but was not hired because he did not pass an IQ test. Griggs argued that a high IQ was not necessary to push a broom, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Furthermore, the court mandated that if testing were used, it must measure job-relevant traits that are directly linked to performance. It must be reliable and valid, and it must not discriminate against “protected groups,” based on race, gender and ethnicity.

Although sound, the court’s criteria left companies feeling frightened of litigation. Test usage fell drastically. However, the verdict forced test developers to apply scientifically precise procedures to their work. The results: More reliable and valid test instruments are available today, and pre-employment testing is extremely effective.

How does testing work? Let’s take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI as it is commonly called. It is the most widely researched psychological test in the world. The exam is compiled of 567 statements, and test-takers answer true or false to items such as “I still maintain close contact with friends from high school,” “I like the excitement of a crowd,” “If I were a photographer, I would rather take pictures of children and flowers,” and “I have thought of trying to get even with someone who hurt me.”

The responses to individual questions do not say much. But collectively they make up a profile, a graph. Literally thousands of studies have been done with the MMPI. This enables qualified experts to compare an individual’s pattern of answers with patterns of different groups of people, including those with histories of violence.

Recently, a group of rejected applicants seeking employment as security guards at Target filed a lawsuit against the department store chain. They allege that the test was a violation of their right to privacy. The original version of the MMPI contained items dealing with religiosity, sexuality and bodily elimination functions. Target used some of these items, and portions of another test, the California Personality Inventory. Target won the first round, but lost the second and appealed the case to the California Supreme Court. It is expected to be tried during the court’s next session.

The offensive items that were thought to violate privacy were removed when the MMPI was revised in 1989. Nonetheless, the issue before the court is whether employers must justify questions of a personal nature as a “compelling need,” a very difficult legal standard that has yet to be defined.

Clearly we would all agree that there is a “compelling need” when public safety is at risk. For example, we need to know that law enforcement officers are free from aberrant behavior. But what about assembly workers, or retail salespeople?

I ask you, is it a violation of privacy if an employer can determine that a job applicant has the potential to shoot up the workplace, possibly killing scores of workers?

It is imperative that our legal system examine this issue. Rather than protecting human rights, the courts are endangering people’s lives.

I know that violence can be screened out of the workplace because I have helped two companies avoid corporate murder. In both incidents, guns were brought on the job by disgruntled employees. In one case, an MMPI was administered after the gun incident, which was the result of a feud with another employee. The test showed that the worker was emotionally distraught and had “poor impulse control,” at least two of the red flags for violent tendencies. But the firm decided to keep the man because of his years of experience and valuable expertise.

However, following successful resolution of the crises, both companies instituted pre-employment psychological testing. There have been no further violent episodes.

If testing had been done with Robert Mack or Jose Maldonado or Larry Hansel, would their First Amendment rights have been violated?

Michael Konz, Juan Lopez-Rodriguez, John Jones and Michael Krowitz are not here to answer.