Violence as an Insider Threat in a World Where Hatred Changes Everything

Both workplace retaliation and ideological attacks are insider threats, but only one is driven by grievance. The other is driven by hatred, and that distinction matters.

In my previous article, I argued that the attack at Bondi should not be viewed as an isolated act of violence, but as the result of an ideological threat that has been allowed to grow internally.

This article focuses on one specific dimension of that argument: VIOLENCE, and why the violence organisations typically plan for is fundamentally different from the violence we witnessed at Bondi.

Both are insider threats. But they are not the same.

Understanding that difference is critical if we are serious about prevention rather than reaction.

Two Very Different Forms of Insider Violence

When violence is discussed as an insider threat, most organisations default to a familiar mental model:

The angry employee.

This model is not wrong, but it is incomplete.

Violence Driven by Grievance and Retaliation

Traditional workplace violence is usually rooted in grievance.

The individual feels wronged by an organisation, a manager, or a colleague. The perceived injustice may involve termination, demotion, disciplinary action, missed promotion, or loss of status. Over time, frustration hardens into resentment.

In these cases, violence is “personal and targeted“. The intent is revenge or punishment. The perpetrator believes harm is justified because of what was done to them.

Importantly, this type of violence often follows a recognisable progression:

• Disengagement and dissatisfaction

• Escalation into active disgruntlement

• Erosion of loyalty and behavioural leakage

• Transition into retaliatory intent

This progression matters because it creates intervention windows.

Even highly or actively disgruntled insiders are not necessarily violent. At that stage, harm is more likely to be organisational — data deletion, sabotage, project disruption, or other mischievous acts intended to “get back” at the organisation.

Violence typically emerges only when disgruntlement crosses into retaliation, when the individual consciously decides to punish a specific person or institution. In it’s most extreme form, this can manifest as an active shooter scenario, representing the most severe and catastrophic outcome of grievance-driven insider violence.

Grievance is a state…Retaliation is a decision.

That distinction is central to traditional insider threat and workplace violence models.

Hatred-Based Violence Breaks This Model Entirely

The violence seen at Bondi does not fit this framework.

This was not a grievance escalating into retaliation. There was no organisational injustice to resolve. No manager, employer, or institution to punish.

This was violence driven by hatred toward a group.

Hatred-based violence operates under a different logic.

It is impersonal. Victims are interchangeable. It is ideological. Violence is morally justified. It is unbounded. There is no natural endpoint.

Where grievance-based violence asks “What did you do to me?”, hatred-based violence asks “Why do you exist?”

That difference makes it significantly more dangerous.

Why Hatred-Based Violence Escalates Faster and Further

Hatred removes the natural brakes that sometimes slow grievance-based violence.

There is no expectation of resolution. There is no desire for acknowledgment or redress. There is no limiting target set.

Instead, violence becomes a means of expression, validation, or obedience to ideology.

In practical terms, this means:

• Warning signs are ideological, not behavioural

• Targets are symbolic, not personal

• Deterrence is weaker

• Escalation can be sudden and catastrophic

This is why hatred-driven violence frequently targets public spaces, community settings, and everyday environments. Access and familiarity replace employment as the defining “insider” characteristic.

Why Organisations and Governments Struggle With This Threat

Most insider threat frameworks were built to manage people problems inside institutions — not ideological extremism inside open societies.

As a result, hatred-based threats are often misclassified:

• Treated as free speech rather than escalation

• Viewed as social issues rather than security risks

• Deferred due to political sensitivity

• Addressed only after criminal thresholds are crossed

By the time violence occurs, the opportunity for early disruption has already passed.

This is not a failure of awareness. It is a failure of will and clarity.

Why This Still Matters to Insider Threat Thinking

It would be a mistake to view hatred-based violence as separate from insider threat altogether.

The defining characteristics remain the same:

• Trusted access

• Familiarity with environments

• Proximity to victims

• Exploitation of assumed normality

What changes is motivation, and motivation determines scale, lethality, and inevitability.

Treating grievance-driven and hatred-driven violence as the same risk leads to blind spots, delayed intervention, and ineffective prevention strategies.

A Final Distinction Leaders Must Understand

Workplace violence driven by grievance is dangerous. Hatred-driven violence is existential.

One can sometimes be redirected and even disrupted. The other must be confronted early and decisively.

If we continue to apply grievance-based models to hatred-based threats, we will continue to be surprised by outcomes that were, in reality, predictable.

Because insider threats are not always about betrayal inside organisations.

Sometimes, they are about ideologies we allow to take root within our own society, until violence becomes inevitable.

And when that happens, it does not stop with one community.