Inappropriate behavior or communications often come before violence, and some behaviors are warning signs that give the organization a chance to stop escalation. There is no profile of a likely perpetrator and no single act predicts violence; risk assessment looks at the whole picture, such as what the person has done before, their grievances and reasons, how they justify themselves, what they intend and what they have done. Faced with clearly problematic behavior, organizations should assess, internally or externally, the risk the person poses and put in place strategies to avert or reduce it, and everyone should be trained to spot worrying conduct and the warning signs that call for a report. Organizations should watch for: past threats or violence, including at work, and criminal history suggesting use of violence to dominate or to cope with stress or conflict; threats, bullying, aggressive outbursts or remarks, or disproportionate rage; abuse or harassment through any channel; grudges, inability to accept criticism, habitual excuses and blaming others; chronic unfounded complaints of persecution and a victim mindset; fixated intrusion or continued unwelcome romantic attention; unpredictable, rash or strange conduct that frightens colleagues; stated intentions of homicide, suicide or self-harm; severe emotional distress; a disturbing fascination with weapons; preoccupation with revenge or unusual interest in publicized violence that unsettles colleagues; and any behavior that instills fear or concern that someone may act violently. Concern grows when behavior is new or comes with sudden changes such as falling productivity, more absence or withdrawal, and when the person faces major stressors such as possible or actual job loss, money trouble, divorce, bereavement, legal problems or substance abuse. Warning signs do not mean violence will follow, but they call for prompt, thorough examination and sometimes intervention.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.