Workplaces, sports teams and friendship groups are a complex melting pot of personalities, values, traits, and behaviours. I must add that in the main we see positive interactions between people who hold good personal values. A majority want to come to work and do a good job. The challenge for an individual in any workplace and one that is at the heart of poor behaviours is, misperceiving what other employees are thinking and feeling.
With much of the spotlight just now on likes of policing, fire & rescue, and military it would be natural to assume that these challenges are solely for these settings. I would argue that they are not and in fact they are human issues which all organisations including smaller teams should be mindful of when working to create that safe and supportive working environment which everyone deserves.
Abusive behaviour, a behaviour excused or one seen as simple banter as well as workplace mistakes often continue because individually people feel uncomfortable with what they see yet believe their peers don’t share similar concerns. I would also add to these harmful events the risk that poor mental health poses to individuals. Let’s not forget that poor wellbeing leads to mistakes and whilst it doesn’t excuse poor behaviour it’s a factor. Let’s face it a healthier person is likely to make less mistakes.
This perception leads to many people remaining silent because they fear the consequences of speaking up. Many fears exist in this ‘Train of thought’ of the bystander.
Losing friends and status plays out in groups. Fear of ridicule or isolation is real as is wanting to remain loyal to a group. A sense of loyalty is important in peer groups. It’s part of their identity. Fear of being seen as disloyal often leads to people doing things that they would never normally do or to go against their training.
In 2020 a sense of loyalty contributed to the murder of George Floyd by serving Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. If only one of the three other police officers present had done something Floyd would still be alive today. In male peer groups this sense of loyalty is especially relevant. Many men are bystanders to harm but do nothing even when harm may be clear to them.
US psychologist Dr Ervin Stuab defines a bystander as
“A witness who is in a position to know what is happening and in a position to take action”
Staub’s definition simply translates into “it’s what you do with what you notice”. Many continue to ignore the term bystander or simply see it as a negative. The reality is that we are all bystanders in those first seconds. It’s what we do next that counts.
Remaining passive (doing nothing) not only signals an acceptance for a behaviour, but it also leads to others being passive also.
It’s fear that often stops people speaking up. It’s part of being human and weighs heavily on many of us. We want to fit in. This is especially true when you are new to a group or in settings where a sense of family is clear.
Psychologists call this condition Pluralistic Ignorance and is where most people privately believe one thing but incorrectly assume that most others feel differently.
Pluralistic Ignorance helps explain why in likes of policing many officers and staff remain uncomfortable with a behaviour but believe others are perfectively comfortable with the ‘what’s app’ chat or when they see clearly notice a procedural mistake but believe others are ok with it.
Pluralistic Ignorance is a circle of behaviour that can lead to people joining in with a behaviour that they don’t agree with. This need to fit in can lead to perfectly good people doing really bad stuff. This then leads to others joining in or remaining passive and the harm ultimately continues.
So, what can police leaders, CEO’s, sports coaches, and teachers do?
A wealth of evidence clearly shows that helping individuals better understand the psychological factors that lead to people misperceiving what others actually think and feel can make a real difference.
So, an initial step to reducing harm in workplaces is to talk to police officers, fire officers, team-mates, employees about pluralistic ignorance: what it is, how it happens and the negative outcomes for both individuals and their professions.
Understanding the psychological process that lead to them misperceiving what others around them are thinking is a good first step. When not discussed adequately this will undermine other work being undertaken to reduce harm in these settings.
In UK policing we continue to see ‘demands’ for a ‘Call-Out’ culture with little or no recognition of the psychology involved. Calling out is perceived by many to be confrontational and as we are learning we human beings don’t like confrontation.
The benefit of this first step is that it begins to reduce the social fear that often inhibits people from intervening to stop harm. When you reduce the fear, you increase the opportunity. The shift of norms then sets up the next step which really focuses on the relationships within the setting.
In many workplaces, not just policing there’s considerable pressure to show loyalty to other group members. This sometimes translates into staying quiet in the face of bad behaviour. Media stories relating to incidents with the City of Edinburgh Council highlight a “Boys club” which covered up harmful behaviours. Sticking together regardless of right or wrong is clear in this and other similar stories.
So, a second step is to redefine the term loyalty. Loyalty is good in organisations. It is vital in likes of policing with officers having their colleagues backs in dangerous and difficult situations.
Loyalty isn’t always bad. A colleague looking out for a colleagues well-being is being loyal, surely? Stopping a friend/colleague from making a career ending mistake as opposed to turning a blind eye is true loyalty.
When we make such a shift, we begin to frame intervention as normal, expected and about doing the right thing. Stopping a colleague from causing harm is more about keeping them safe as opposed to being disloyal. Mental well-being is often seen as a private matter. When we redefine loyalty, we make it ok for colleague’s top speak to colleagues about any issues observed.
At a time when public trust in likes of policing is at an all-time low redefining of loyalty helps teach individuals that any bad act from one officer impacts on all officers. It instils a sense of responsibility on individuals to act for the betterment of the individual, the profession, and the communities they serve. This is true for many settings, not just policing.
Over recent weeks we have seen stories relating to problematic behaviours in both central and local government, the Royal Air Force, Health care as well as the usual stories on UK policing. What connects all these stories is a lack of action early on in an event. When we act early, we stop an evolution of harm. We reduce harm.
If the aim of organisation is simply to weed out the ‘bad apples’, employees still won’t feel safe speaking up, and bigger issues will go unresolved.
A focus on Pluralistic Ignorance and loyalty will help turn the passive bystander into active bystanders. By the way the evidence supports this.
grahamgoulden.com 