Bad behaviour is usually more visible than good. It’s what people talk about, it’s what the news media report on, it’s what experts focus on. Experts are always trying to change bad behaviour by warning of how widespread it is, and they take any opportunity to label it a crisis. Many love talking about the problems because it generates political and social support
This strategy might feel effective, but it’s not — it simply communicates that bad behaviour is the social norm. Telling people to go against their peer group never works. A better strategy is the reverse: give people credible evidence that among their peers, good behaviour is the social norm.
To reduce harm in sports teams, workplace, prisons and professions like policing and fire, help clarify what people really think is acceptable. Such a simple statement but an approach that is seldom acknowledged as one of the most effective ways to address the harms that come from poor behaviours or work-related mistakes.
A few years ago, I was asked to do some work with a Scottish rugby team after a team initiation went badly wrong. In the presence of a team captain, committee members and fellow team members what was intended as a bit of fun ended with the club being heavily sanctioned losing key players as well as having the incident shared across both local and national media platforms.
During my work with the club, I simply focused on helping individuals get better at knowing each other. What was clear that many of those present saw harm but didn’t speak up because they thought others were ok with what was going on. The reality is that many weren’t.
You could apply this type of harmful situation to work nights out, team meetings, the back of police vans and even online within ‘what’s-app’ groups. What connects all of these, and other incidents is both the presence and silence of third parties present, bystanders. Problematic behaviours, even workplace and operational mistakes often continue because individuals privately see the harm yet wrongly perceive that peers don’t share their concerns.
This destructive influence of what an individual thinks of others is behind many incidents we currently read about involving UK policing organisations. This destructive influence is within many of the stories involving harmful attitudes being on display in online platform such as what’s app. This influence is also present when groups of officer’s witness mistakes or excessive force being used by a colleague. When no one speaks up others are left thinking “Am I the only one who sees the harm?”
In psychology this is referred to as pluralistic ignorance, which occurs when most people as individuals believe one thing (the harm) but incorrectly presume that others feel differently and that they support the behaviour or action on display. The result is often silence due to the social cost of intervention.
In speaking up the fear is rejection by my friends, being isolated, or ridiculed by colleagues. Many male students who witness harmful sexual behaviours in male friends don’t act for fear of being laughed at. By the way this social fear is simply part of being human. Recent neuroscience suggests pain receptors in the brain are activated when faced with these challenges. This suggests it is felt as a pain. As we know no human likes to experience pain.
Pluralistic ignorance helps explain why individually many students feel there’s heavy drinking culture on university campuses but believe peers are happy with it. Its why many male police officers are unhappy when male colleagues use sexually harmful language or post offensive images on Whats-App but wrongly perceive that other officers endorse it. It’s worth adding in that the above presents a risk for passive bystanders in how they may be seen as complicit or as failing to act in any future misconduct enquiries.
So, what can the likes of policing and Fire & Rescue do to encourage officers to address such behaviours and mistakes by colleagues? A focus on addressing pluralistic ignorance would be a very helpful first step.
The science of prevention suggests that exposing individuals to the healthy views of peers can make a real difference. A first step to addressing police misconduct would involve exposing police officers to pluralistic ignorance, what it is and how it happens. When we better understand this, we are more likely to speak up. Why? When we feel supported, we are more likely to intervene.
The next step is to redefine what loyalty means and looks like in these organisations. In these professions individuals feel an immense pressure to back up colleagues no matter what.
In our life’s, whether professionally or personally we demonstrate loyalty every day. When a police officer needs help colleagues will go. It doesn’t matter their age, service or rank, they will do what is needed to help. In friendship groups loyalty is present. It’s a normal and important part of these groups make-up. The issue is that in many cases loyalty translates into staying silent in the face of bad behaviour or mistakes by their peers.
Here’s the thing, such a sense of family, supporting a friend or colleague can be used in a way that help address many of the ongoing issues we read about in our daily news feeds.
The expectation moves from a wall of silence to action where an expectation is created to step in to keep others safe. Whilst a policing mistake might not impact directly on officers observing the mistake, all officers may be impacted in many other ways. A loss of trust and confidence in policing may reduce a flow of intelligence which could lead to increased workloads as well as officer safety.
The likes of the airline industry and healthcare have reframed addressing mistakes as one that all have a role in preventing them from happening in the first place. Addressing a mistake is seen as stepping in to keep everyone safe. In likes of policing such a move would help address policing mistakes, poor behaviours as well as supporting officer wellness.
In the 1980 the campaign “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” led to upwards of 70% of US citizens taking car keys off their friends. When we shift responsibility from simply calling colleagues out to one that protects their welfare of that of others, we will see more action from officers, and importantly we will see it being done early. As I often say in my work earliest is best.
As I finish writing this piece Yorkshire cricket club has been heavily sanctioned over racism. A heavy fine and points deduction the outcome after the club admitted liability. A club spokesperson said “We are disappointed to receive points, deductions which affect players and staff at the club, who were not responsible for the situation”. Whilst not directly responsible, silent bystanders were present. Would the presence of active bystanders have made a difference? The research suggests it would have.
grahamgoulden.com 