“Zero tolerance.” For years, it’s been the go-to phrase in workplace violence policies—short, sharp, and seemingly unambiguous. It projects strength, signals commitment, and draws a hard line against threats and aggression. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t always work. Despite its popularity, research shows that zero-tolerance language can backfire—discouraging reporting, limiting flexibility, and undermining the very culture of safety it’s meant to protect.
Policies built on rigid language may sound tough, but they often fail in practice. In this issue of Left of Boom, we examine why legal and safety experts are rethinking zero-tolerance policies and explore smarter, more resilient alternatives that maintain authority without sacrificing nuance—or results.
The Unseen Consequences of Absolutes
On the surface, zero-tolerance policies appear clear and decisive. They signal that certain behaviors will not be tolerated and will trigger immediate, severe consequences. But this rigidity can work against the very goals these policies aim to achieve, especially when it comes to employee reporting.
A growing body of evidence shows that employees are less likely to report workplace violence or harassment under zero-tolerance regimes. Why? Because they fear the consequences for the person being reported may be too extreme.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has raised similar concerns. In its harassment prevention guidance, the agency advises against using “zero tolerance” language, noting that it’s often equated with automatic termination—a perception that can discourage employees from reporting misconduct.
As former EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum put it, “A lot of people don’t want their co-worker to be fired; they just want the conduct to stop.” When employees believe that termination is the only possible outcome, they’re less likely to come forward, especially in first-time or borderline cases.
The UK-based consultancy Culture Shift found similar concerns: many employees hesitate to report because they don’t want their report to result in a colleague’s dismissal. Most just want the behavior corrected—not punished with career-ending consequences.
The result? A chilling effect. Concerning behaviors go unreported, delaying intervention and allowing risks to escalate. In trying to appear strong, zero-tolerance policies may instead create blind spots that leave organizations vulnerable.
One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Legal and Practical Risks of Inflexible Policies
Beyond discouraging reporting, zero-tolerance policies introduce serious challenges to enforcement, fairness, and legal defensibility. When a policy implies that all violations will receive the same consequence, organizations lose the ability to tailor responses based on context, severity, or intent.
In reality, misconduct spans a wide spectrum:
- A verbal outburst from a stressed employee during a tense meeting
- A vague or off-color joke made without malicious intent
- A minor physical altercation between employees who immediately apologize
- A premeditated act of intimidation or violence
Each may qualify as “violence” or “harassment”—yet they demand vastly different responses. A rigid zero-tolerance policy often forces teams to apply the harshest penalty, even when it’s clearly disproportionate.
Employment law firm Fisher Phillips warns that zero-tolerance language can “eliminate supervisors’ ability to weigh the seriousness of the offense, consider mitigating factors, and tailor an appropriate response.” The result: poor decisions, morale issues, and litigation risk.
The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) agrees. In a 2023 article, it described zero-tolerance policies as “administratively convenient but neither practical nor effective.” The article cited real cases in which employees successfully appealed terminations under zero-tolerance policies, arguing that the penalties were unjustified and the policy left no room for discretion.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers a similar warning. Its planning guide notes that zero-tolerance language can “create the appearance of inflexibility,” discouraging action when managers are unclear on their options. In some cases, they may do nothing rather than risk overreacting.
Legal exposure increases when exceptions are made. Suppose a senior employee receives a warning for an outburst, while a newer colleague is fired for similar behavior. Even if the rationale seems internally sound, it can open the door to claims of discrimination or unequal treatment. Courts have repeatedly ruled against employers with policies that appear arbitrary or overly rigid.
Bottom line: zero tolerance often creates more liability than protection.
More Than Just Semantics: Why Policy Language Matters
Some argue that “zero tolerance” is just a slogan—symbolic of an organization’s values. But words matter, especially in workplace policies that shape culture, define expectations, and guide disciplinary outcomes.
Employees, unions, and regulators take language literally. When a policy promises zero tolerance, people expect uniform action. If leadership deviates from that promise, even with good reason, it undermines credibility and trust.
Zero tolerance also conveys a dangerous subtext: that the problem is already solved. It suggests a static solution to a dynamic problem. But workplace violence prevention is an ongoing process. It requires continuous engagement—through training, early reporting, intervention, and tailored responses.
As Culture Shift aptly put it: “Rather than a commitment to no violence, zero tolerance becomes a commitment to harsh penalties.” That’s a shift from prevention to punishment—and one that often proves both counterproductive and ineffective.
Balancing Risk and Response: Practical Policy Alternatives
A strong workplace violence prevention policy doesn’t need “zero tolerance” to be effective. In fact, the most successful policies are clear, firm, and flexible—designed to hold people accountable while still allowing for discretion and proportional response.
Here are evidence-informed practices and examples of better alternatives:
- Clarify Expectations: Clearly state that violence, threats, and harassment are unacceptable—but avoid absolutes.
Example: “Violent or disruptive behavior is not tolerated. All incidents will be reviewed and addressed appropriately.” - Describe a Range of Consequences: Don’t mandate a one-size-fits-all penalty. Outline possible disciplinary actions based on severity.
Example: “Corrective or disciplinary action will be taken based on the severity of the behavior, which may include training, suspension, or termination.” - Encourage Reporting and Support: Make it clear that employees are expected and encouraged to speak up, and that retaliation won’t be tolerated.
Example: “Employees who report in good faith will be supported, and retaliation will not be tolerated.” - Use Strong but Flexible Language: Convey seriousness and resolve—without rigidity.
Example: “Violence and threats will not be tolerated. All reports will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately.” - Train Managers on Nuance: Supervisors must be equipped to assess incidents case-by-case, consider context, and apply fair responses. Over-reliance on automatic penalties damages both trust and credibility.
- Align Words with Actions: A policy is only as good as its application. Consistent, transparent follow-through builds confidence in the system and reinforces a culture of safety.
These approaches preserve the authority of your policy while avoiding the pitfalls of rigidity. They help foster an environment where employees feel safe to report concerns, confident that action will be taken—and reassured that those actions will be fair and measured.
Move Beyond Slogans: Build Culture, Not Just Compliance
If your organization still relies on “zero tolerance” language in its workplace violence prevention policy, it may be time for a reset. Not because you’ve grown soft on safety—but because you’re ready to lead smarter.
An effective policy should do more than sound tough. It should encourage early intervention, support reporting, and hold up under legal and operational scrutiny. Language matters. Organizations that move beyond slogans and adopt flexible, evidence-based policies are better equipped to foster trust, prevent escalation, and protect their people.
