Skip to start of content

Home → Publications → Reports → Crime prevention series → Protecting counter and interviewing staff from client agression → Antecedent events

Crime prevention series

Antecedent events

Published in:
Protecting counter and interviewing staff from client agression
Bruce Swanton and Daryl Webber
Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1990
ISBN 0 642 14974 7 ; ISSN 1031-5330
(Crime prevention series) ; pp. 5-10

Managers make many important contributions to the minimisation of client aggression by taking antecedent events into consideration. Three aspects of antecedent events are particularly important: personal problems - of both employees and clients; selection of employees; and training of employees. Some aspects are more easily addressed than others.

Personal Problems

Few employees have no problems. For most it is a matter of how much or little personal concerns impinge upon their workplace behaviour. Such problems might concern relationships or health, they might involve debt or any of a hundred other worries.

Thus, each party to an interview or other counter interaction brings to that event their own unique cluster of concerns. Those overburdened with personal problems find their capacity to interact impaired. Employees operating at the organisation-public interface should be alert to such factors. Should they feel "off colour" or otherwise doubt their capacity to cope with their duties on a particular day or with a particular client, they should inform their supervisor.

Managers should encourage such action (within sensible limits) on the part of their subordinates. Below par officers staffing busy counters are a threat to performance. Customer service deteriorates, organisational reputation suffers and employees put themselves at increased risk of client aggression.

Larger organisations and offices generally possess sufficient resources to rotate staff in response to such exigencies without disrupting routine operations. There is usually less flexibility in small offices. Wise managers compile lists of casual employees who know the field, such as former employees, who can be called upon at short notice to keep their counters and interview rooms fully staffed.

Clients have their own problems. In some cases, a client's problem is the subject of an interview, such as a homeless person's application for temporary accommodation or a defaulting taxpayer required to justify his non-compliance. Managers for the most part have less opportunity to control the behaviour of clients than they do employees. But, there are ways in which the disposition of presenting clients can be favourably influenced.

Factors such as locations of offices and hours of public contact can significantly impact the personal problems of clients, either by aggravating them or by constituting a problem in themselves. Awkward business hours and out of the way locations create substantial hardship to those without transport or who work normal office hours. In a more direct sense, regular clients known to possess behavioural or other problems, caused perhaps by epileptic or neurotic conditions, can be seen by appointment. By making their attendance known in advance, preparations, such as ensuring the presence of an experienced interviewing officer and/or a security officer, can be made.

Files (electronic or paper) of potentially violent clients who periodically attend offices for interview can be flagged to that effect. Supervisors and interviewing officers are thereby warned in advance of potential problems. The possibility of a Freedom of Information request to access such files should be considered in such circumstances.

Selection

Counter and interviewing officers are frequently appointed to their positions with little regard to their ability to deal with people. Ideally, counter staff and interviewing officers required to deal with the public continually should be mature extroverts, especially in those agencies implementing unpopular public policies and practices.

Persons possessing racial, ethnic and cultural biases, are unlikely to be well suited to counter and interviewing duties; nor are the immature and introverted.

Aggregate levels of aggression inflicted on counter and other interviewing employees vary greatly according to industry. Applicants for counter and interviewing positions in those industries and services in which client aggression is identified as a problem or as an emerging problem should be assessed as to their suitability for the task. Desired personality profiles are not difficult to prepare. Neither is it a complex task to match applicants' attributes against these. Not all client aggression is randomly inflicted on counter and interviewing officers. Poor employee attitudes attract negative client reactions, and staff manifesting continually poor attitudes will attract a greater degree of aggression than those projecting more positive attitudes.

A study undertaken by Coopers & Lybrand W.D. Scott on behalf of the National Training Council (1988) identified a number of attitudinal criteria relevant to intending counter and interviewing officers' performance:

The study expresses doubts as to the extent to which these attitudes are trainable.

This advice poses short-term problems to managers in that an important qualification for public contact duties in many industries is grasp of technical detail, whether it be knowledge of welfare benefits, transport timetables, migrant services, document drafting or whatever. The imposition of attitudinal qualifications could severely limit the supply of acceptable applicants in some organisations. In the longer term, of course, solutions will sometimes be possible through recruitment and training initiatives.

It is recognised, though, that ideal conditions rarely exist and that staff assigned to counter and interviewing duties - even in areas in which client aggression is identified as a problem - will not always be psychologically well suited to their duties even though they possess required expertise in their various subject areas.

Another problem is the rapid turnover of public contact staff in many offices. Even well suited and trained counter and interviewing staff require a period of years in which to develop their knowledge and hone their interpersonal skills. The fact that some public contact staff lack physical and emotional maturity as well as experience, poses problems to supervisors regarding assignment, supervision, training, development and so on.

Some counter and interviewing positions deal with a high proportion of stressed persons, whereas others do not. Some possess a monopoly of the service provided, for example, unemployment benefits, whereas in respect of others, a client exercises choice, for example, investment advice. Considerations such as these determine in part aggregate levels of client aggression. Effective public contact staff selection procedures will take such factors into account.

Training

Counter and interviewing staff training comprise two facets. One involves knowledge peculiar to the function fulfilled by an employee. For instance, if one worked at an airline ticket counter it would be impossible to provide satisfactory service without a basic knowledge of airline schedules and ticketing procedures, ability to handle the various technological aids provided, and so on. The other aspect involves the interpersonal skills of employees; a pleasant, positive manner, a service oriented approach, capacity to work under pressure and the skill to mollify disgruntled customers. The quality of service provided to clients overall is as dependent on these factors as it is on an employee's product knowledge. Some employees naturally possess better interpersonal skills than others; but, all public contact staff require formal training if they are to achieve necessary minimum skill levels, and implement organisational policies.

Larger organisations usually possess greater resources for the implementation of training and other forms of staff development but, whatever the size of an agency or office, it is a manager's responsibility to ensure public contact staff are trained to an acceptable work standard. There are two compelling reasons underpinning this advice. Firstly, the lower the aggregate level of service provided clients/customers by employees, the greater the degree of client inflicted aggression is likely to be. Secondly, there is an obligation on employees to provide sound advice to clients/customers with regard to matters of substance. The legal principle involved was expressed in the High Court of Australia in the 1981 case L. Shaddock & Associates v. the Council of the City of Parramatta (150 CLR, 1981-82, pp. 225-57). Murphy J. stated:

In general, a person who makes a negligent mis-statement in circumstances where he knows or should know that the person or persons to whom the mis-statement is made may rely upon it, is liable in damages for loss sustained by the person or persons as a result of relying on the mis-statement (p. 257).

According to the now defunct Federal Public Service Board (1982), the principle applies to both oral and written information and advice.

Supervisors' Responsibilities

Supervisors of counter and interviewing officers have a particular responsibility to ensure their staff:

Management's responsibilities

Management possesses a responsibility to ensure staff are informed and developed in the best way possible to cope with client aggression. However, in very small (often voluntary) organisations, interviewing officers or counsellors may constitute the bulk of the staff. In such cases, it is desirable that such officers be aware of the responsibilities normally associated with management and consistent with their circumstances.

Management's responsibilities might include: