The journalist and satirist Alan Coren once said that “to have a grievance is to have a purpose in life”.
This was meant as a witticism of course, but the statement rings true when one considers how the aggrieved can present to the corporate risk manager: as being locked in the resentful and unrelenting pursuit of a personal quest, to the apparent exclusion of all else.
The risk factors associated with resentment as a motivation for stalking in the general population have been clearly established.[1] However, as they relate to the stalking of companies and their leadership, the situation is only now starting to be understood.
In a study of risk factors associated with approach and persistence among our corporate threat assessment cases, duration of intrusion was closely associated with prolific communication, increasing levels of anger, the making of demands for money or apologies, highly personal quests for justice and a history of intrusive behaviour.[2]
We know that unreasonable complaints pursued by customers, service-users and former employees can be highly persistent, in our caseload having disrupted workplaces for a mean of almost two years before being prioritised for risk assessment.
One perpetuating factor in such cases appears to be well-intentioned but flawed complaint-handing policy, the effect of which is to repeatedly prioritise the feelings of the unreasonable and vexatious, over the merit of the complaint itself and the reasonable needs of employees tasked with handling it. Behaviour meeting a threshold for a range of criminal offences goes unchecked because of standard operating procedures, thereby encouraging persistence.
This general picture, one of behaviour uncontained in contrast to that of the reasonable complainant, is compounded by the disruption caused by approach behaviour in the aggrieved, approach being a necessary proxy for most forms of violence.
In the same study, of the population who made unsolicited approaches to the offices and residences of executive leadership and employees, 83.3% had communicated before doing so. This is in stark contrast to a study of cases involving members of the British Royal Family and politicians, in which very few cases (2.7%) communicated before approaching.[3]
Of all the communicator-approachers in our corporate study, the overwhelming majority had made declarations of intent (80%) and issued clear threats (73.3%) before approaching. This stresses the importance of adopting a structured, evidence-based approach to referring concerning communication for threat assessment, as part of both complaints and general communications handling policy.
But the making of threats appears to have a deeper association with approach behaviour in the aggrieved. In a study by Theseus exploring the relationship between threats to public figures and approach behaviour, significant associations with approach in the aggrieved were found to include:
It is parroted by some working in the field of threat assessment, and to audiences from different sectors of the private sphere, that “people that pose genuine threats don’t make threats”. Indeed, this line was recently offered up by one certified proponent, as a “general rule”.
The statement is palpable nonsense. It is based on a narrow reading of old research and a lazy assumption that risk factors identified in one population, such as judges, politicians or celebrities, for example, must equally apply in all others.
For the corporate risk manager and those engaged in the protection of executive leadership, employees and their workplaces, it is misleading at best.
The challenge in managing the risks associated with threat and persistent intrusion by the aggrieved is that their behaviour often presents within the tramlines of formal complaints policy and process.
Whilst this can hamper resolve in confronting unreasonable and/or criminal behaviour, it also represents an opportunity to identify and mitigate persistence risk where grievance presents itself, such as in complaints handling and executive response, for example.
The individuals who will go on to cost companies in productivity, security expenditure, anxiety, legal fees and the disruption associated with approach behaviour, this year, next year, the year after and so on, are currently, clearly and repeatedly communicating their intent.
