Can prevent the next terrorists attack.- Aggression Management
Moving from Reacting to Preventing Acts of Terrorism
TSA Has Been Missing Terrorists Because They Have Been Unable To Foresee And Thereby Prevent These Terrorists’ Acts.
It is only with the observation of “emerging aggression” and the distinction between “Primal and Cognitive Aggression” that one can foresee and prevent any level of aggression, including a terrorist.
Why Have Current Government Systems Failed Us?
Current systems in place to foresee and prevent the violence of individuals like Major Nidal Malik Hasan, whose massacre took the lives of 13 soldiers and wounded 29 others, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber are not working!
The Government has put a number of systems in place, yet they leave significant gaps permitting terrorist like Major Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Shahzad the means to pass through. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review of TSA’s behavior detection program, known as SPOT (“Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques”). The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee web site states, “GAO’s report confirms that TSA has bungled the development and deployment of a potentially important layer of aviation security.” Why is TSA having such difficulty preventing these incidents? Because they are looking for the wrong person! According to the report, “Since the SPOT program’s inception, 17 known terrorists have traveled through eight SPOT airports on 23 different occasions. This includes Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber.”
Stop Reacting And Start Preventing!
Only when we isolate “aggressive behavior” specifically and judge it on its merits, we will be able to foresee, engage and prevent any level of emerging aggressive behavior. According to the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education’s report on Targeted Violence in Schools, there is a significant difference between “profiling” and foreseeing emerging aggression; their study concluded, “The use of profiles is not effective either for identifying students who may pose a risk for targeted violence at school or – once a student has been identified – for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.” It continues; “An inquiry should focus instead on a student’s behaviors and communications to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” Assessing objective, culturally neutral, distinct body language, behavioral and communication indicators of emerging aggression is the only effective means to foresee and prevent the threat posed by any aggressor who intends harm to others, whether the perpetrators are students or terrorists.
In Tel Aviv, Israel, Ben Gurion Airport bridges the gap between “profiling” and protecting their passengers by interrogating every passenger, a method deemed inappropriate at the much busier Boston Logan Airport because no one would make their flights and the Israelis patently stereotype, therefore their system in the US would never pass a challenge by civil libertarians. Hence the reason the “Israel Method” will not find success in the United States.
Mental Health Resources Are Also Failing Us.
We repeatedly hear that Major Hasan had PTSD or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, a form of mental illness. Although this may be true, using mental health resources as a means to identify these threats of aggression have repeatedly failed their purpose. The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007 concludes, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.” “Those with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence, not perpetrators.” In fact, according to U.S. News, August 20, 2009, Virginia Tech’s staff evaluated Seung-Hui Cho more than a year before he killed 32 people, himself and wounding 25 others in that fateful 2007 rampage. In three separate interactions with the school's counseling center at the end of 2005, the staff found the Virginia Tech killer, Mr. Cho, to be depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others, according to the center's records.
The Government Systems Continues to Fail Us.
Until now, government relies predominantly on foreseeing an adrenaline-driven Primal Aggressor to identify a terrorist. This has failed because it represents an individual who is losing control, not a terrorist. Generated by anxiety, fear, anger, frustration, etc. too often airport security (TSA) accosts the 85 year old woman going to her late husband’s funeral because she is gripped with anxiety, fear and frustration. Primal Aggression will identify those who are fearful of being caught for drug related types of issues but will not foresee the terrorists. This was clearly illustrated in the GAO reports that between May 2004 and August 2008:
2 billion passengers went through SPOT airports
150,000 were selected for secondary screening
14,000 were referred to law enforcement
1,100 were arrested
0 were arrested for terrorism.
Terrorists, not only disconnect from their victim, they disconnect from their own well-being, and lose those Primal Aggression markers of anxiety used by TSA; they take on Cognitive Aggression markers, which permit us to foresee and prevent their acts of terror. In another key flaw, TSA continues to use Deception Detection, as the basis for their Behavior Recognition (Project Hostile Intent) or SPOT program, a system long determined to be inadequate. Different cultures deceive differently and since there are over two thousand cultures, Deception Detection requires far too much sophistication for most to use effectively and therefore it is prone to apply stereotyping and profiling, becoming an immediate target of civil libertarians. A failed system out of the box, yet our government continues to use it, and continues to try to validate it. It is not until our TSA realizes that a terrorist is an intent-driven Cognitive Aggressor that they will foresee and prevent the next terrorist attack. It is only through the ability to foresee the emergence of all levels of the intent-driven Cognitive Aggression Continuum that one can prevent the next terrorists attack.
by John D. Byrnes
For more information, contact John D. Byrnes, 407-718-5637 or JohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com
source and more / http://blog.aggressionmanagement.com/
How to Get Your CEO and/or CFO to Agree to Bullying Training
First the premise: As an HR, Risk Management or Security professional within the context of the subject of “Bullying,” what outcome do you want to achieve? I have repeatedly read that convincing “C” level management to support training regarding bullying too often falls on deaf ears. Why? You attempt to convince your CEO that bullying behavior is linked to violence and that a subsequent catastrophic incident would imperil your company with significant losses and liabilities; but your CEO is not buying this rationale! Why? Your CEO looks at probabilities and the probable chance that your catastrophic incident will actually occur is low enough not to consider, that is, relative to the cost of training employees (the hourly cost of an employee in training and off the job (lost productivity), plus the hourly cost of an employee replacement trying to make up for their lost productivity.).
If, on the other hand, you are able to convince your CEO that your plan has merit your CFO quickly objects that there is not enough budget available for such training. Why? Because your CFO cannot see a Return on Investment (ROI). Your CFO says, “If we invest this significant time and money in this training (lost productivity), what is my return for this investment?” You respond by claiming that bullying negatively effects productivity and the CFO asks you to demonstrate your claim. This is where we get into a discussion of “soft costs” versus “hard cost.” You claim that enhanced well being (soft cost) of employees will produce measureable results; they ask you to show where this is reflected on their balance sheet (hard costs)! We need a clear and convincing illustration between the cost of training and the cost of not training (hard costs) that will motivate a CEO and quiet the CFO. If you agree with this premise, I suggest you continue reading.
An important revelation: A survey was conducted by the largest Insurance broker in the world (Aon Corporation) in the United Kingdom of the Royal Mail, illustrating that when there is aggressive employee behavior (like bullying) other employees don’t want to be at work. They come in late, go home early, stay longer at lunch (tardiness) and now there is a new term, “presenteeism” meaning someone is present at work but is so distracted by another’s aggressive behavior they might as well be absent. Furthermore, these employees were so upset with their aggressive environmental that they would “call in sick” so as to avoid this toxic behavior, pushing “absenteeism” to its limits. If your organization has 4-5 days of absenteeism per employee per year (typical), one or two could be due to “aggressive behavior” in your workplace! I told one organization this and their VP of Human Resources turn to one of his colleagues and said, “Ours is 9 days!” British Airways absenteeism per employee per year is 24 days! They are giving CARS to employees who demonstrate reduced absenteeism! What is the cost of absenteeism in your organization and how much could be due to “aggressive behavior?” And these costs do not reflect the impact of an employee becoming so disenfranchised that they leave your organization, which creates all of the costs of replacement and retraining of a new employee.
This Aon Corporation study showed that, when adding together “tardiness” and “absenteeism” only, the cost to the Royal Mail annually was 247,000,000 pounds per year! (Do you realize that the United Kingdom is only slightly larger than the State of Florida?) If you want your culture to change, you illustrate the costs of aggressive (bullying) employees and you may find that productivity and ultimately profitability can be a great motivator for any CEO and CFO to change their view of the need for this training, as well as supporting changing a current aggressive (bullying) culture. This is not the possibility of future loss but the current and empirical loss due to Bullying and other aggressive behavior. Did you know that there is a direct and correspond relationship between “aggressive behavior” and any attempt to establish and maintain “teamwork,” “leadership” and “loyalty?” This is a topic for another time.
The key here is the reference. It is not “bullying behavior,” it is “aggressive behavior” of which “bullying behavior” is one element. When you consider the whole spectrum of “aggressive” behavior, it also solves another one of your key issues that I read about repeatedly in your comments, that of connecting petty bullying behavior with its more horrific evolution of “violence.” This whole picture becomes clear and convincing “aggressive behavior” in your workplace presents a clear (empirical) and present loss on productivity, that also holds out the potential of violent behavior and when your survey is completed the costs will shock and motivate most every CEO and CFO.
The Survey: This basis for the survey should be quite simple. You asked all employees (or pilot with one division, etc), with anonymity so we get truth, “Have you ever come in late, gone home early and/or called in sick because of another’s aggressive behavior?” (Or course you define aggressive behavior.) You ask these questions in several different ways to get affirmation and through multiple choice questions; you ask them to quantify how many hours or days that they have missed.
Once we have the gross number of hours and days lost due to “other’s aggressive behavior,” we ask the organization what is the hourly and daily cost of an average employee in this division. From this we extrapolate a cost to the organization.
This is not a “soft-cost” that can otherwise be discounted by a CFO, which is too often the result of soft-costs. This is a “hard-cost.” It is their employees telling them that they are missing valuable time and their integral costs. It is very specific and the costs are significant (enough to turn the head of any CEO)!
We have done this so I know that is it quite easy to do. When I was partnering with Aon Corporation with their clients, we would offer to base our costs/fees on 20% of their savings from a follow up survey.
This produces the Return on Investment (ROI) that we have suggested will compel most any CEO or CFO! First, you conduct the survey initially, which illustrates the “hard costs” of aggression in your workplace, which justifies the cost of training. Then, six months later, you conduct the survey again. When you compare the cost savings in the second survey of the costs in the first survey, compared to the costs of training, you have the Return on Investment (ROI) and let me assure you; with Aggression Management Solutions training this return is significant.
In fact, no employer would take us up on this offer because, once they understood the concept, they knew the savings would be far greater than our recommended fees.
In summary, what the Aon Corporation survey represented was those individuals who were tardy and/or absent due to another’s aggressive behavior, it is that simply and therefore that compelling. We did not use the word “Bullying” because bullying is simply one element of the “Aggression Continuum.” It did not include “turnover” because there were elements of turnover that could be controversial and remember they wanted “hard costs” only (only costs that could not be disputed by the CFO). They did not ask employees to estimate the cost of damage done to equipment due to another’s aggressive behavior, because the employee might be guessing the cost and this could be discounted. This survey did not include “presenteeism” because as compelling as the concept is, the CFO could too easily discount it value. This survey only included tardy and absenteeism and the company’s cost of time (hourly and daily) because these were easily quantifiable and undeniable. Aon Corporation realized that if a CFO starting “discount,” they too often would continue discounting every other element as well, and the result would be devastating as the CEO denying an otherwise reasonable initiative. If you have had this same experience, let us know and we may be able to assist.
For more information, contact John D. Byrnes, 407-718-5637 or JohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com
source and more / http://blog.aggressionmanagement.com/
TSA Has Been Missing Terrorists Because They Have Been Unable To Foresee And Thereby Prevent These Terrorists’ Acts.
It is only with the observation of “emerging aggression” and the distinction between “Primal and Cognitive Aggression” that one can foresee and prevent any level of aggression, including a terrorist.
Why Have Current Government Systems Failed Us?
Current systems in place to foresee and prevent the violence of individuals like Major Nidal Malik Hasan, whose massacre took the lives of 13 soldiers and wounded 29 others, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber are not working!
The Government has put a number of systems in place, yet they leave significant gaps permitting terrorist like Major Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Shahzad the means to pass through. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review of TSA’s behavior detection program, known as SPOT (“Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques”). The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee web site states, “GAO’s report confirms that TSA has bungled the development and deployment of a potentially important layer of aviation security.” Why is TSA having such difficulty preventing these incidents? Because they are looking for the wrong person! According to the report, “Since the SPOT program’s inception, 17 known terrorists have traveled through eight SPOT airports on 23 different occasions. This includes Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber.”
Stop Reacting And Start Preventing!
Only when we isolate “aggressive behavior” specifically and judge it on its merits, we will be able to foresee, engage and prevent any level of emerging aggressive behavior. According to the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education’s report on Targeted Violence in Schools, there is a significant difference between “profiling” and foreseeing emerging aggression; their study concluded, “The use of profiles is not effective either for identifying students who may pose a risk for targeted violence at school or – once a student has been identified – for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.” It continues; “An inquiry should focus instead on a student’s behaviors and communications to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” Assessing objective, culturally neutral, distinct body language, behavioral and communication indicators of emerging aggression is the only effective means to foresee and prevent the threat posed by any aggressor who intends harm to others, whether the perpetrators are students or terrorists.
In Tel Aviv, Israel, Ben Gurion Airport bridges the gap between “profiling” and protecting their passengers by interrogating every passenger, a method deemed inappropriate at the much busier Boston Logan Airport because no one would make their flights and the Israelis patently stereotype, therefore their system in the US would never pass a challenge by civil libertarians. Hence the reason the “Israel Method” will not find success in the United States.
Mental Health Resources Are Also Failing Us.
We repeatedly hear that Major Hasan had PTSD or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, a form of mental illness. Although this may be true, using mental health resources as a means to identify these threats of aggression have repeatedly failed their purpose. The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007 concludes, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.” “Those with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence, not perpetrators.” In fact, according to U.S. News, August 20, 2009, Virginia Tech’s staff evaluated Seung-Hui Cho more than a year before he killed 32 people, himself and wounding 25 others in that fateful 2007 rampage. In three separate interactions with the school's counseling center at the end of 2005, the staff found the Virginia Tech killer, Mr. Cho, to be depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others, according to the center's records.
The Government Systems Continues to Fail Us.
Until now, government relies predominantly on foreseeing an adrenaline-driven Primal Aggressor to identify a terrorist. This has failed because it represents an individual who is losing control, not a terrorist. Generated by anxiety, fear, anger, frustration, etc. too often airport security (TSA) accosts the 85 year old woman going to her late husband’s funeral because she is gripped with anxiety, fear and frustration. Primal Aggression will identify those who are fearful of being caught for drug related types of issues but will not foresee the terrorists. This was clearly illustrated in the GAO reports that between May 2004 and August 2008:
2 billion passengers went through SPOT airports
150,000 were selected for secondary screening
14,000 were referred to law enforcement
1,100 were arrested
0 were arrested for terrorism.
Terrorists, not only disconnect from their victim, they disconnect from their own well-being, and lose those Primal Aggression markers of anxiety used by TSA; they take on Cognitive Aggression markers, which permit us to foresee and prevent their acts of terror. In another key flaw, TSA continues to use Deception Detection, as the basis for their Behavior Recognition (Project Hostile Intent) or SPOT program, a system long determined to be inadequate. Different cultures deceive differently and since there are over two thousand cultures, Deception Detection requires far too much sophistication for most to use effectively and therefore it is prone to apply stereotyping and profiling, becoming an immediate target of civil libertarians. A failed system out of the box, yet our government continues to use it, and continues to try to validate it. It is not until our TSA realizes that a terrorist is an intent-driven Cognitive Aggressor that they will foresee and prevent the next terrorist attack. It is only through the ability to foresee the emergence of all levels of the intent-driven Cognitive Aggression Continuum that one can prevent the next terrorists attack.
by John D. Byrnes
For more information, contact John D. Byrnes, 407-718-5637 or JohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com
source and more / http://blog.aggressionmanagement.com/
How to Get Your CEO and/or CFO to Agree to Bullying Training
First the premise: As an HR, Risk Management or Security professional within the context of the subject of “Bullying,” what outcome do you want to achieve? I have repeatedly read that convincing “C” level management to support training regarding bullying too often falls on deaf ears. Why? You attempt to convince your CEO that bullying behavior is linked to violence and that a subsequent catastrophic incident would imperil your company with significant losses and liabilities; but your CEO is not buying this rationale! Why? Your CEO looks at probabilities and the probable chance that your catastrophic incident will actually occur is low enough not to consider, that is, relative to the cost of training employees (the hourly cost of an employee in training and off the job (lost productivity), plus the hourly cost of an employee replacement trying to make up for their lost productivity.).
If, on the other hand, you are able to convince your CEO that your plan has merit your CFO quickly objects that there is not enough budget available for such training. Why? Because your CFO cannot see a Return on Investment (ROI). Your CFO says, “If we invest this significant time and money in this training (lost productivity), what is my return for this investment?” You respond by claiming that bullying negatively effects productivity and the CFO asks you to demonstrate your claim. This is where we get into a discussion of “soft costs” versus “hard cost.” You claim that enhanced well being (soft cost) of employees will produce measureable results; they ask you to show where this is reflected on their balance sheet (hard costs)! We need a clear and convincing illustration between the cost of training and the cost of not training (hard costs) that will motivate a CEO and quiet the CFO. If you agree with this premise, I suggest you continue reading.
An important revelation: A survey was conducted by the largest Insurance broker in the world (Aon Corporation) in the United Kingdom of the Royal Mail, illustrating that when there is aggressive employee behavior (like bullying) other employees don’t want to be at work. They come in late, go home early, stay longer at lunch (tardiness) and now there is a new term, “presenteeism” meaning someone is present at work but is so distracted by another’s aggressive behavior they might as well be absent. Furthermore, these employees were so upset with their aggressive environmental that they would “call in sick” so as to avoid this toxic behavior, pushing “absenteeism” to its limits. If your organization has 4-5 days of absenteeism per employee per year (typical), one or two could be due to “aggressive behavior” in your workplace! I told one organization this and their VP of Human Resources turn to one of his colleagues and said, “Ours is 9 days!” British Airways absenteeism per employee per year is 24 days! They are giving CARS to employees who demonstrate reduced absenteeism! What is the cost of absenteeism in your organization and how much could be due to “aggressive behavior?” And these costs do not reflect the impact of an employee becoming so disenfranchised that they leave your organization, which creates all of the costs of replacement and retraining of a new employee.
This Aon Corporation study showed that, when adding together “tardiness” and “absenteeism” only, the cost to the Royal Mail annually was 247,000,000 pounds per year! (Do you realize that the United Kingdom is only slightly larger than the State of Florida?) If you want your culture to change, you illustrate the costs of aggressive (bullying) employees and you may find that productivity and ultimately profitability can be a great motivator for any CEO and CFO to change their view of the need for this training, as well as supporting changing a current aggressive (bullying) culture. This is not the possibility of future loss but the current and empirical loss due to Bullying and other aggressive behavior. Did you know that there is a direct and correspond relationship between “aggressive behavior” and any attempt to establish and maintain “teamwork,” “leadership” and “loyalty?” This is a topic for another time.
The key here is the reference. It is not “bullying behavior,” it is “aggressive behavior” of which “bullying behavior” is one element. When you consider the whole spectrum of “aggressive” behavior, it also solves another one of your key issues that I read about repeatedly in your comments, that of connecting petty bullying behavior with its more horrific evolution of “violence.” This whole picture becomes clear and convincing “aggressive behavior” in your workplace presents a clear (empirical) and present loss on productivity, that also holds out the potential of violent behavior and when your survey is completed the costs will shock and motivate most every CEO and CFO.
The Survey: This basis for the survey should be quite simple. You asked all employees (or pilot with one division, etc), with anonymity so we get truth, “Have you ever come in late, gone home early and/or called in sick because of another’s aggressive behavior?” (Or course you define aggressive behavior.) You ask these questions in several different ways to get affirmation and through multiple choice questions; you ask them to quantify how many hours or days that they have missed.
Once we have the gross number of hours and days lost due to “other’s aggressive behavior,” we ask the organization what is the hourly and daily cost of an average employee in this division. From this we extrapolate a cost to the organization.
This is not a “soft-cost” that can otherwise be discounted by a CFO, which is too often the result of soft-costs. This is a “hard-cost.” It is their employees telling them that they are missing valuable time and their integral costs. It is very specific and the costs are significant (enough to turn the head of any CEO)!
We have done this so I know that is it quite easy to do. When I was partnering with Aon Corporation with their clients, we would offer to base our costs/fees on 20% of their savings from a follow up survey.
This produces the Return on Investment (ROI) that we have suggested will compel most any CEO or CFO! First, you conduct the survey initially, which illustrates the “hard costs” of aggression in your workplace, which justifies the cost of training. Then, six months later, you conduct the survey again. When you compare the cost savings in the second survey of the costs in the first survey, compared to the costs of training, you have the Return on Investment (ROI) and let me assure you; with Aggression Management Solutions training this return is significant.
In fact, no employer would take us up on this offer because, once they understood the concept, they knew the savings would be far greater than our recommended fees.
In summary, what the Aon Corporation survey represented was those individuals who were tardy and/or absent due to another’s aggressive behavior, it is that simply and therefore that compelling. We did not use the word “Bullying” because bullying is simply one element of the “Aggression Continuum.” It did not include “turnover” because there were elements of turnover that could be controversial and remember they wanted “hard costs” only (only costs that could not be disputed by the CFO). They did not ask employees to estimate the cost of damage done to equipment due to another’s aggressive behavior, because the employee might be guessing the cost and this could be discounted. This survey did not include “presenteeism” because as compelling as the concept is, the CFO could too easily discount it value. This survey only included tardy and absenteeism and the company’s cost of time (hourly and daily) because these were easily quantifiable and undeniable. Aon Corporation realized that if a CFO starting “discount,” they too often would continue discounting every other element as well, and the result would be devastating as the CEO denying an otherwise reasonable initiative. If you have had this same experience, let us know and we may be able to assist.
For more information, contact John D. Byrnes, 407-718-5637 or JohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com
source and more / http://blog.aggressionmanagement.com/
Megjegyzések
Megjegyzés küldése