Organizations continue to struggle with workplace violence because they frame it too narrowly. Many organizations still treat Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention (WVPI) as a security program, a training requirement, or a compliance issue. When positioned this way, WVPI competes for attention and resources. It never becomes central to how leaders think about protecting the enterprise. Practitioners can achieve better support for WVPI by aligning the program to Board-level priorities through understanding and application of objective-centric Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).
The Problem
Violence is not just a “security problem.” It’s a behavioral and organizational risk problem. Most programs gravitate toward the mass casualty incident, but when addressed properly, Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention spans a spectrum of violent behavior, including harassment, intimidation, threats, coercion, assaults, terror, and other forms of targeted/intentional violence. These behaviors directly undermine outcomes that Boards are increasingly considering to be mission-critical: protecting people, maintaining compliance, ensuring continuity of operations, preserving reputation, and sustaining a stable workforce. Yet most organizations fail to connect violent behavior to their enterprise-level objectives.
A core issue for WVPI is a lack of alignment. When WVPI is implemented because of a past incident, a desire to “do the right thing,” or a regulatory requirement, it remains a reactive program. Violence is a risk that impacts the certainty of achieving organizational objectives. When WVPI is understood as a capability essential to achieving mission-critical objectives, it becomes an enterprise enabler.
This shift from a security initiative to an objective-centric risk discipline enables organizations to build durable, cross-functional systems that reduce uncertainty and strengthen organizational resilience.
The Solution
ISO 31000 is the leading global risk management standard that provides a framework for addressing the dynamics mentioned above. It defines risk as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives.” The standard implicitly outlines two types of objectives: (1) strategic objectives (driving performance) and (2) mission-critical objectives (ensuring survival). WVPI aligns primarily with the latter. Boards are increasingly relying on the model prescribed in ISO 31000 because it provides a clear, defensible way to govern mission-critical objectives.
Viewed through ISO 31000, WVPI is a “risk treatment” that reduces uncertainty around multiple mission‑critical objectives, such as protecting its people, maintaining compliance, sustaining operations, and preserving trust. Because these objectives span HR, Legal, Security, Operations, and Communications, WVPI naturally belongs within an enterprise risk framework, not a departmental silo.
Traditional v. Modern ERM
Today, many organizations use risk list Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), built around registers, heat maps, and siloed risk owners. This approach manages items, not outcomes. With workplace violence listed among a host of other identified risks, it competes for attention and resources and is evaluated in isolation from the objectives it threatens. The result is predictable: a reactive, underfunded, and mismanaged issue, as alluded to above.
Objective-centric ERM, as promoted by ISO 31000, starts with the outcomes the Board must protect and evaluates how violence creates uncertainty around those objectives. This reframes Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention from “a security program” to an enterprise capability, naturally encouraging cross-functional alignment. No single department owns the objectives that violence threatens. It becomes an integrated system that strengthens overall organizational resilience.
Gaining Leadership Support for Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention
By applying this understanding, support for Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention can be stronger. Support begins with clarity. Violence is a source of uncertainty that directly affects outcomes that boards are responsible for safeguarding. Therefore, it cannot be another category on a risk register.
Ask: What organizational objectives become uncertain from achievement if violence (in any of its forms) occurs?
Answering that question identifies which mission-critical objectives WVPI supports. When practitioners show how violent behavior creates uncertainty around these objectives, WVPI becomes immediately relevant to executive oversight.
Next, practitioners translate the full spectrum of violent behaviors into specific uncertainties that undermine those objectives. For example, harassment creates uncertainty about workforce stability or retention; threats may impede operational continuity; homicides may undermine a positive reputation; the list goes on. This mapping gives leaders a direct line of sight into how WVPI strengthens enterprise performance rather than simply reducing incidents.
From there, practitioners build cross-functional ownership around the activities (“treatments” as outlined in the ISO) that reduce those uncertainties. HR, Legal, Security, Operations, and Communications each own their part of the solution, and WVPI becomes a coordinated enterprise capability rather than a departmental program. Also, an executive should have overall ownership of the program that this multidisciplinary team reports into.
Following this progression facilitates greater success because it creates certainty that organizational objectives can be accomplished. That’s what a Board cares about.
Conclusion
Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention becomes an enduring, organizational enabler when implemented as a capability focused on protecting the mission-critical objectives that are the core focus for Boards. Violent behavior creates uncertainty within a multitude of these objectives, and benchmarking against the framework in ISO 31000 links WVPI directly to those outcomes.
WVPI cannot remain a program solely championed by a single function. Practitioners must show how violent behavior undermines essential objectives, map those behaviors to uncertainties, and implement cross-functional practices to reduce them. That’s when WVPI will gain executive ownership, shared accountability, and measurable impact on resilience.
This article originally appeared in Workplace Violence Today magazine.
Need help with your workplace violence prevention and intervention plan? Check out our Safe Workplace Suite options.
