In the aftermath of this week’s shocking office shooting in Manhattan, organizations are facing the challenge of reassuring employees while genuinely enhancing workplace safety. This task goes far beyond simply installing security cameras or updating emergency procedures — it requires a fundamental reevaluation of how companies address both physical safety and psychological well-being in the workplace.
“HR leaders must understand that fear is a rational response to real events — ignoring it undermines trust,” says George L. Vergolias, a clinical psychologist and chief clinical officer at R3 Continuum. “Reassurance begins with acknowledgment and transparency. Leaders should validate employee concerns and clearly outline the organization’s proactive safety measures.”
This perspective is prompting a significant shift in how companies address workplace security concerns. Instead of treating safety as a technical issue managed by facilities teams, organizations are adopting a deeply human approach that acknowledges the emotional impact of traumatic events.
Marissa Andrada, chief culture and transformation officer at WUF World, highlights the importance of the initial response to a tragedy. “First, acknowledge the fear. Ignoring it or offering overly corporate messaging only erodes trust,” she states. “Employees need to hear directly from leaders that their safety and wellness, both physical and psychological, is a top priority. Communication should be personal and direct, ideally face-to-face or via video conferencing, rather than through email or Slack.”
This human-centered approach is changing how companies perceive workplace security. Sujay Saha, founder and president of Cortico-X, suggests moving away from traditional top-down safety mandates and adopting collaborative approaches that engage employees actively.
“Instead of top-down communications, create employee-led safety committees where staff can actively participate in identifying concerns and solutions,” Saha suggests. “Host informal coffee chats or ‘safety circles’ where employees can share feelings and ideas in comfortable settings. This shifts the dynamic from ‘management telling us what to do’ to ‘we’re solving this together,’ which reduces anxiety and increases buy-in.”
The practical implications of this shift are significant. Companies are offering multiple ways for employees to engage with safety planning, recognizing that people process trauma and anxiety differently. Saha notes that organizations should provide multiple communication channels and formats, such as visual guides, video walkthroughs, one-on-one conversations with supervisors, or peer buddy systems, allowing employees to choose their level of involvement in safety planning and training.
At the same time, organizations are strengthening technical security measures, but through a broader lens. Vergolias points out best practices, including creating behavioral threat assessment teams, training staff to recognize warning signs, implementing secure visitor protocols, and setting clear pathways for reporting concerns confidentially.
He emphasizes that companies shouldn’t handle these challenges alone: “Most organizations do not have the internal expertise to adequately evaluate and mitigate threats, so it is critical to have proper consultation with trained experts in this area.” The ANSI/ASIS Workplace Violence and Active Assailant Prevention Standard provides a framework that many organizations are now adopting.
The quality of leadership communication during critical moments is vital for maintaining employee confidence and trust. Andrada stresses the importance of authentic and vulnerable communication. “Employees want to hear from real humans with heart, not templated statements. Acknowledge what’s happening, share what you’re doing, remind them of the resources available, and keep the dialogue open and ongoing,” she advises.
Vergolias agrees, noting that effective communication in high-anxiety situations must be “timely, clear, and grounded in both facts and empathy. Leaders should avoid vague reassurances or delayed responses, which can amplify fear and mistrust. Instead, use plain language to explain what is known, what’s being done, and what support is available while acknowledging uncertainty when it exists.”
Following the New York shooting, companies are demonstrating effective crisis response efforts. Vergolias cites a major healthcare system in the Midwest that rapidly activated its threat assessment team, increased onsite security, offered trauma-informed counseling, and held daily town halls to keep staff informed. This transparency, swift action, and emphasis on employee well-being helped restore trust and control.
Experts emphasize that speed and empathy must work together. Andrada observes that organizations empowering local leadership to respond quickly with empathy and decisiveness fare better than those waiting for a top-down directive. “After a tragedy, speed matters but so does tone. The best responses are immediate, compassionate, and backed by follow-through,” Andrada notes.
Beyond immediate crisis response, employers view this moment as an opportunity to strengthen overall workplace culture. Saha advocates framing safety as part of overall employee wellness rather than a standalone topic, integrating stress management, mindfulness sessions, and resilience building into safety programming, and offering “wellness check-ins” that address both physical safety and emotional well-being, demonstrating to employees that they’re valued as whole people, not just workers to protect.
This broader approach includes practical accommodations for employees who may need time to process traumatic news. Saha suggests offering “reset days” after troubling incidents, allowing informal mental health conversations, and providing options like