Every minute of the day, Facebook users share 2,460,000 pieces of content. Twitter users tweet 277,000 times. YouTube users upload 72 hours of new video. Over 120 users sign up for LinkedIn. That’s a lot of action!

The benefits of social media use for businesses have become clear. It helps with building brand and awareness, managing reputation, crowdsourcing, customer service, gathering customer insights, recruiting, driving website traffic, and the list goes on. But with these benefits come risks. The first step to managing the risks is to recognize them.

At Gibson, we are proud of the company culture we have established, but in order for our culture to stay strong, we must pay attention to how to we handle the integration of new employees. This is the onboarding process.

The goal of onboarding is to have engaged employees who feel valued and become a part of the company culture. Not only does onboarding teach an employee about the company and their role, but it helps them feel like a part of the organization, which in turn makes them a more engaged, empowered and productive employee.

How do you accomplish this? How do you successfully integrate new employees into your company culture?

This post summarizes Matthew Moore and Thomas O’Neill’s presentation titled “To Arm or Not to Arm” from the August 6, 2014 Securing & Surviving The Active Shooter Epidemic Seminar. It is meant to convey his ideas and opinions without endorsement or criticism. Therefore, the ideas and opinions in this post are not necessarily those of Gibson.

As active shooter events become more prevalent—not just in schools but in workplaces too—we need to do something to make where we work safer. One idea schools and businesses are considering is arming their employees. It’s an option that elicits strong and passionate arguments both pro and con. But those arguments often fail to consider the risks associated with arming (or not arming) employees or the controls necessary to undertake arming employees properly.

Ultimately, there is no “right” answer; there is no “easy” answer. It’s a decision each organization must make on its own. But when an organization weighs the option to arm its employees, it must consider all the risks and controls to make sure arming is the right decision for its workplace.

This post summarizes Andy Barker’s presentation titled “Active Shooter Response” from the August 6, 2014 Securing & Surviving The Active Shooter Epidemic Seminar. It is meant to convey his ideas and opinions without endorsement or criticism.

Shootings can occur anytime, anywhere, and to anyone. When they do, they will likely be over in 5–15 minutes—before law enforcement can intervene. So people on-site are the first line of defense; they must be ready to protect themselves. Would you be ready to take action to survive?

This post summarizes Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s presentation titled “How Kids Are Learning To Kill” from the August 6, 2014 Securing & Surviving The Active Shooter Epidemic Seminar. It is meant to convey his ideas and opinions without endorsement or criticism. Therefore, the ideas and opinions in this post are not necessarily those of Gibson.

School Violence As We’ve Never Seen Before

How many students have been killed by school fires in the last 50 years?

Zero.

What about school violence in the United States?

In the 2006-2007 school year alone, 63 students were killed.

Workplace injuries can quickly take their toll on the injured worker, other employees and the company. Not only are their increased medical expenses, but there are production losses and added stress to your existing workforce – the costs add up fast! Working with an occupational health facility can significantly help a company control their occupational injuries, illnesses and the related expenses.

How do you handle a threat of violence made by a student? What if a teacher reports suspicious behavior, what can you do to evaluate this threat? How do you determine if a threat is legitimate?

The U.S. Secret Service developed the process known as “threat assessment” as a framework for assessing the potential for targeted violence. After the school shooting at Columbine in 1999, the Secret Service partnered with the U.S. Department of Education to better understand school shootings. What came out of this Safe School Initiative was a variation on the Secret Service’s threat assessment process to more appropriately apply to schools and the risks they face.

These six principles that were developed help establish a structure for identify, assessing, and managing individuals who may pose a risk of targeted violence to schools.

“The effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate.” – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Too often we hear climate change and just cast it off as the next generation’s issue to handle. Time for a reality check. Climate change is here. And it’s already having an impact. It’s one of the top emerging risks for businesses. Pay attention and get prepared. The IPCC’s Climate Change 2014 Report is one of many detailed studies that confirms the reality of the changing the climate and the risks it presents.

The FBI defines an active shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” Unfortunately, we have become all too familiar with active shooter incidents in recent years, especially in schools.

According to “The State of School Safety in America” report by SchoolReach, most school administrators surveyed felt well prepared to handle emergency communications with parents, but very few said they felt very prepared in regards to crisis communications, especially with the media. The first priority in a severe crisis, such as an active shooter situation, is ensuring the safety and well-being of students and staff. But crisis communication becomes key once the individuals are safe. 

Active shooter events can occur anywhere. No school or business is immune. But there are steps we can take to help prevent violent attacks.

In our “Can You Spot A Leak?” blog post we explained how research has suggested that there are leaks in the majority of active shooter cases. This means that the person(s) planning the violence communicate it in some form prior to the event. Monitoring, identifying, and responding to leaks can help prevent the violence.

Similarly, identifying and reporting suspicious behaviors and activities is critical to prevention. Individuals do not generally just “snap” and become violent. Over time they tend to display indicators of potentially violent behavior. With early recognition, these behaviors can often be treated or managed. We can better educate ourselves on what these behaviors look like in order to prevent active shooter incidents or other violent situations.