|
|
|
|
|
7 Co-Workers Shot at Massachusetts Internet Company.
Source: New York Times
December 27, 2000
|
WAKEFIELD, Mass., Dec. 27 — Michael McDermott, a software tester at an Internet-consulting company in a Boston suburb,
shot to death seven of his co-workers on December 26, 2000.
Apparently he came to work as usual, chatted and even laughed with colleagues - then used a semiautomatic rifle and a
shotgun to kill seven of them.
Yet another firearm, a powerful .460 Magnum rifle with a sniper scope, was found by police in Mr. McDermott’s locker at
work. In his home police found bomb-making material, including three gallons of nitric acid, fuses, blasting caps, and
literature on bomb-making.
A possible motive being investigated for the murders is Mr. McDermott’s concern regarding the company's plans to comply
with an Internal Revenue Service request for garnishment of his wages against back taxes.
According to the Associated Press, Mike Stanley, a team leader at Edgewater, said the shooting "seems like such a random,
ridiculous thing." With only one or two exceptions, "he had nothing to do with any of them." The victims included the VP
Human Resources, accounting personnel and receptionists.
In published reports Mr. Stanley also said of Mr. McDermott, "He gave the impression he was a bit strange, that's all,"
and added he had never appeared threatening.
This is the twelfth major workplace shooting in the last six years. It is the most devastating since a 40-year-old copier
repairman, shot seven people dead at the Xerox Corporation in Honolulu.
|
*Where possible, links to the complete article are provided.
In the event these links have expired, contact MindData for
a copy of the article in review.
|
|
Commentary from
The Doctor
Two Steps to Preventing Tragedy.
When Benjamin Franklin stated, “in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes” it is very unlikely he had in mind
the consequences of an IRS wage garnishment.
If what is suspected in this recent tragedy is true, what a terrible penalty has been paid by so many innocent parties
for a single employee’s mental attitude. At least five days a week, fellow employees are closer to hand than any other
associates including family. One essential requirement of all employers is that they provide a safe work environment for
their employees. Logically this should include reliable evaluation of the stability of co-workers. Somewhere, somehow,
someone always slips through the conventional screening process of resume and background checks combined with personal
observations from interviews. While offering every possible condolence to bereaved family, friends and community, I would
also like to suggest that the best possible token of remorse is to take positive action to ensure such a tragedy is never
repeated.
Crisis intervention, increased surveillance and counseling, may all have their place – but nothing is really adequate
unless the employee in question can clearly be identified as needing added attention. Even better, companies could avoid
hiring a candidate whose behavioral characteristics reveal unstable tendencies. And, how is an organization supposed to
do this without adequate, available information and/or a professional behaviorist on their staff? Two simple steps are
all it takes.
- Allocate a modest amount, as little as $50.00 or less per employee per year, to identify and monitor tendencies to
key, work related, behavioral traits. Know, before hiring, promoting, or placing other workers at risk, how someone is
likely to react.
- Accurately test for and predict an individual’s behavior or attitudes toward certain types of stimuli, e.g.,
workplace requirements such as attitude toward authority.
Very literally, a pittance of time and money is all that is needed to prevent and protect a company’s most valuable
asset – their employees. Very sadly, many organizations have overlooked these simple steps that could equally literally
save corporate and family lives.
|
|
|
|
|
 Requires Flash Player
|
|
Served in the U.S. Air Force as a jet fighter pilot, David Pearson is a noted behavioral scientist. David Pearson was a contributing author of the EEOC's Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and also contributed to the Tower Amendment to Title VII.12. As a nationally
recognized authority on employment practices and behavioral tendency profiling, Dr. Pearson has been quoted in publications
from Newsweek to The Wall Street Journal.
Dr. Pearson has been retained as an expert witness for the successful defense of major companies including Adolph Coors,
Frontier Airlines, the City and County of Denver, Detroit Edison, and Martin Marietta. David Pearson has earned a Master of
Science and a Doctorate in Psychology. He has also received extensive legal training, and has considerable experience in statistics
and research methodology. Today, Dr. Pearson continues to make valuable contributions to MindData's business -- including
development of all new MindData products and contribution of frequent articles and insights to the MindData web site.
The opinions expressed in articles by this author do not necessarily represent
the opinions of MindData. These articles are provided as a means of informing
you of current events and opinions that impact employers and the workplace.
|
|
Requires Flash Player
|
|