The Killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson: What About The Employees?
The recent murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson combined with a constellation of unprecedented and concurrent factors makes this a multilayered shock trauma workplace event for employees of UnitedHealthcare and UnitedHealth Group.
Here’s why and important things to consider.
Intersection of Grief and Trauma-The Double Whammy of Traumatic Loss
By all accounts, Mr. Thompson was well-liked amongst those within UHC and by his peers in the industry. The shocking manner of his death creates a challenging intersection of grief and trauma requiring a far longer runway for coping and managing than most understand or that corporate eco-systems typically have patience for.
Not surprisingly, articles from ‘experts’ have been appearing in reaction to this event with predictions of ‘normalcy usually returning for most employees within 2-4 weeks.’ These expectations are myopic and worrying, based on a general understanding of acute stress response expression following a traumatic incident. It’s misaligned with the presence of acute grief from a traumatic loss combined with several other complicating issues for employees, discussed further on in this article.
Thanatological research reports the higher the degree of perceived preventability of a death combined with other factors including unexpectedness, a ‘stigmatized’ cause, a young(er) decedent, and forced secondary losses, the risk of negative bereavement outcomes and coping difficulties increases significantly. Mr. Thompson’s death meets this criterion with no shortage of complicating factors, including the presence of trauma, for all at UHC and UHG mourning him.
Every shock trauma event in the workplace is unique and creates permanent change. Ask anyone who has survived a workplace active shooting, experienced a death by suicide of a peer at their job location or a high-profile scandal plastering their company front and center in the media. They will tell you that their perspectives of the world, their job, themselves, professional priorities, and their employer shifted, in one way or another. There is nothing ‘general’ about shock trauma events, each requiring responses that speak specifically to the circumstances of that incident and influenced by what happened before the event.
Reactivation of Previous Lived Experience of Violence for Employees
As of September 5, one day following the Apalachee High School shooting in Winder, Georgia, there were 11,598 deaths in the U.S. from gun violence, averaging 47 a day. Those numbers have increased since and Mr. Thompson’s death sadly adds to those grim statistics. And these numbers don’t include those injured and burdened with medical outcomes that are disruptive and often ruinous financially, professionally, and personally. The irony for victims of gun violence who may currently be fighting with their insurer to receive the care they need is almost too much to bear.
What gun violence death statistics don’t illustrate is the number of people impacted by each one of those deaths. People who are grieving and trying to ‘do life’, struggling with the absence of a parent, loved one or friend and the meaning they brought to their lives that is now gone.
Those who work in disaster planning to establish Family Assistance/Reunification Centers within hours of a mass fatality use a calculation of 8-10 people per decedent to approximate the number of people they’ll be serving. During the first year of the pandemic social science researchers used the same formula to begin understanding the bereavement impact of that mass fatality event.
Do the math. This means that as of Sept. 5 approximately 115,980 people were grieving and directly impacted by gun violence. Many of those people have jobs or go to school where they are expected to focus and complete tasks on deadlines whilst managing the invisible wounds and emotional fallout of what’s happened. And these numbers are just for 2024. There are cohorts from previous years still struggling with outcomes from gun violence and other violent deaths. Those who survived the Edmond Oklahoma post office mass shooting in 1986, from which the term ‘going postal’ emerged, have in subsequent years relayed in interviews how long the impact from that event was present in their lives both professionally and personally. For many who emerge from experiencing a violent loss that impact is permanent.
There are approximately 400,000 employees working under the UHG umbrella, parent company of UnitedHealthcare and Optum. Undoubtedly, many of these employees have already been touched by gun violence or other form of violent death in some way. Mr. Thompson’s murder could easily trigger a disruptive reactivation of that lived experience, making the current incident that much more challenge to cope with- one of those complicating factors I referenced earlier.
Scandal and Public Vitriol
High profile scandal and public shaming are also drivers of shock trauma that affect organizations. Sadly, employees of UHC and UHG are currently experiencing this in the extreme, coupled with the unexpected loss of a senior leader.
Recent reports indicate that Mr. Thompson himself was under investigation for alleged insider trading. As liked as he was, this information might not align well with the image many had of him. We have a cultural standard of not speaking ill of the dead and post-mortem revelations suggesting questionable behavior around honesty, fidelity and trust can be confusing and provoke intense feelings of betrayal by the decedent, contradictory to the state of mourning.
This past summer UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty was publicly excoriated by members of Congress for having insufficient protections in place following a massive ransomware cyberattack that made vulnerable sensitive personal data for an estimated one third of Americans. With the considerable resources available to UHG, the largest healthcare company in the world by revenue, for ensuring such protections, this results in reputational risk for employees compounded by significant perceived preventability by the public, furthering an image of corporate greed at the expense of enrollees. This, in addition to several high-profile lawsuits UHC and UHG are currently defending against.
UnitedHealthcare clocks in at having the largest number of claim denials. The avalanche of vitriol, public shaming and mind-numbing frustration expressed in the wake of Mr. Thompson’s death from patients, families and physicians illustrating heartbreaking stories of care denials for pain relief during end stage cancer and last-hope lifesaving treatment, allegedly to boost company profits, has been excruciating for the company to withstand.
In an ill-advised video intended only for employees but leaked to the media, UHG CEO Andrew Witty clearly feeling pressured, went on a bit of a rant defending UHC’s policies as ensuring the provision of ‘necessary care’ and then went on to tie that with the company’s sustainability. Not helpful. The fact this was leaked to the public by someone on the inside may suggest an attempt at whistleblowing to contradict Mr. Witty’s statements.
Social media is littered with jokes using Mr. Thompson’s death to parody insurer denials for lack of prior authorization, resulting in Thompson being portrayed as a less than sympathetic victim to many, some going so far as to suggest his death was justifiable. A terrible thing to hear for those mourning his absence. This violates customary western cultural norms for how we respond to death and talk about the dead in public, making even smaller the circles where employees can feel safe to speak openly.
For those at UHC and UHG sincerely believing their work to be serving the public good, this may be their first confrontation with the full measure of consequences for enrollees, following their employer’s denial decisions and alleged business practices, of which their own work contributes to.
For others, especially those serving as ‘grievance coordinators’ at UHC, whose job is to engage directly with enrollees fighting claim denials and whose authority to effectuate desperately needed relief is quite limited-whilst previously able to compartmentalize the suffering they’re chronically exposed to, their ability or desire to carry on in that role, in the face of what may be considered overwhelming ‘evidence’ of what their work is supporting, may no longer be possible for them.
The above examples create a perfect environment for the development of ‘Moral Distress’ amongst employees, defined within the research as the psychological impact from confrontation with a situation that violates one’s ethical standards and code of conduct but feeling constrained to speak up, change, or prevent due to fear of harm, loss or threat.
Moral Distress is a form of trauma resulting in intense shame, guilt, rage, anxiety, depression, self-loathing, a loss of self-respect and self-confidence. It can be professionally and personally debilitating. For those employees who may have already been experiencing moral distress, Mr. Thompson’s death and what it has unleashed may be the final straw, activating an intense emotional reckoning for them.
Death Threats and Fears for Personal Safety
Whilst it’s not unusual for senior executives in myriad industries to receive death threats, since the shooting of Mr. Thompson, threats and safety concerns have significantly escalated and not just for executives.
Leaders of other insurers have cautioned employees from wearing apparel or using objects displaying the company name or logo out of an abundance of caution. Think about the impact that has on employees coupled with the outspoken ‘moral equivalence arguments’ by some on social media that Mr. Thompson’s death was justified. UHG CEO Andrew Witty has reported receiving “you’re next” threats. This creates a chilling environment for employees, raising the prospect of more violence to come.
It would not be unreasonable for anyone working for a health insurer right now to be wary of continued backlash towards their industry and have legitimate concerns of “am I in danger…could I be next”? Going to and from work looking over one’s shoulder is emotionally taxing and can be terrifying for employees and their loved ones. Any spouse of those serving in law enforcement and the military can tell you all about that.
Uncertainty, Anxiety, & Layoffs-Secondary Losses
In addition to all the above employees are currently facing, there naturally exists uncertainty regarding Mr. Thompson’s replacement and what they will or won’t do in the way of change that could be quite disruptive and unwelcomed. It’s likely Thompson’s permanent replacement won’t be selected immediately so they’ll be plenty of time for employees to ‘stew’.
New senior leaders often bring in their own people for their executive team. Will there be layoffs at the top and structural changes triggering redundancies down the ranks? For those who enjoyed reporting to Mr. Thompson, inevitably there’s anxiety about what life will be like under new leadership and new reporting relationships, common even under normal circumstances triggering change due to retirement or succession. For those in leadership positions nearing retirement age, the prospect of suddenly being made redundant and forced to find a new job at this juncture of their professional career can be frightening and destabilizing.
With the ocean of negative criticism targeting UHC will enrollees jump ship, especially now during open enrollment season when they are free to do so? Will layoffs be used to manage significant financial impact not just from loss of enrollees but also from the legal cases still looming that may not go their way? The timing and cascading impact of Mr. Thompson’s death couldn’t be worse.
Unhelpful Notions Around ‘Return’ and ‘Normalcy’ Following Shock Trauma Workplace Events
By now, you probably have a better understanding of how ill-conceived the earlier referenced expectations are for a ‘return to normalcy within 2-4 weeks’ considering the layers of complexity within this shock trauma event that has rocked the world of employees and will continue reverberating for some time.
Since the pandemic, Western culture has talked non-stop about ‘resilience’ and ‘bouncing back’, constantly seeking hacks for doing it faster. Common languaging for resilience frequently uses ‘return to normal’ phrasing and is something business leaders often say they’re anxiously awaiting and trying desperately to achieve, as soon as possible.
That’s their first mistake in the long road to unwinding the impact and recovering from this type of event.
In the case of UHC, the previous state they called ‘normal’ didn’t include the experience or even the conscious possibility of the CEO being deliberately shot and killed in broad daylight, made worse by the deliberate connection to the company’s very reason for existence. Mr. Thompson’s death was neither random nor bad luck from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Literally, the unthinkable has happened. So, a return to that time, space and a type of innocence that was their ‘normal’ previously, is impossible. Life, as they knew before, is over.
What’s necessary in the wake of shock trauma events is fashioning a new definition and experience of normal that incorporates what has happened, rather than attempting to recreate what was. This will ‘take a village’ of all who inhabit that organizational eco-system.
Final Note: What Employees Need From Leadership in the Wake Of The Unthinkable
Shock Trauma often hijacks safety, functioning, and a sense of purpose. The goals employees and managers discussed before the event often just don’t matter now or perhaps never will again. Priorities and meaning-making frequently change following significant disruption and loss. Restoration from these types of events will neither be influenced nor dictated by impatience, the calendar, or Wall Street expectations. Employees are desperate for leaders to lead, not just manage, in this chaotic environment.
I invite those in leadership positions to consider incorporating the following:
Tapping into self-awareness and humility to engage in reflection and a personal inventory to identify how this incident has impacted you, actively seek support to address that impact, and model those behaviors for others to do the same. In doing so, you’re giving permission to others for being human.
Reestablishing psychological safety throughout the organization and addressing trust gaps.
Asking people what they need rather than guessing and imposing ‘fixes’ that aren’t helpful. By asking you’re acknowledging that you see and hear them, whilst communicating humility that you don’t have all the answers but will do what’s necessary to find out.
Setting realistic expectations in concert with the realities of how trauma and grief impacts human beings and aligning operational decisions accordingly in the short and long term.
Understanding that getting back to a fully functioning place is evolutionary and won’t magically reappear pressured by external dictates.
Providing multi-formatted ‘pro-active’ and long-term support mechanisms extending beyond initial on-site grief counselors or emergency responses by your EAP in the early days following the event. ‘Pro-active support’- bringing help and resources on-site for free and easy access v ‘passive support’- depending on employees to self-select and seek it for themselves with the provision of phone numbers and websites.
Providing trauma and grief informed training and support for all in management positions to be better equipped for communicating and working with affected employees and teams.
Having crisis communication skills.
Providing mechanisms for anonymous communication with management to ‘de-risk’ the sharing of feedback and information, removing fear of real or perceived retaliation.
Connecting with your people and helping them to connect with each other to identify and work on what matters now, because of what happened, not as if it didn’t.
This critical work requires expertise for integrating trauma and grief informed practices with effective leadership skills and pitch perfect communication. Often, shock trauma workplace events are first time experiences for leaders so understandably there’s a deep learning curve.
If you as a leader, managing in the wake of a shock trauma incident don’t have this expertise, your most important job now is to engage and work with those who do.
It could be a career and legacy killer for you if you don’t.