The rush by many to use the term ‘Upstander’ is leading to some uncomfortable conversations not taking place. In this piece I aim to persuade you to consider that the term ‘upstander’ isn’t helpful and that those in workplaces better consider the science as opposed to simply what sounds better. While the intention behind promoting the idea of being an ‘upstander’ is understandable, there are several reasons why quickly moving to the term is unhelpful and at times problematic. In fact i would argue it will undermine your very intentions to motivate your teams to act when they observe harm.
I’m a believer in the science. Everything I do in my work uses science. For me when you use the science you are better placed to influence people to come along with you. Authority has been proven to persuade others to follow a particular idea or concept. This is why you will often hear me say “the science says”.
After the murder of Sarah Everard in 2020 I began sharing my work with US policing agencies to UK colleagues. At that time, I had just joined the national training team of the Active Bystander for Law Enforcement (ABLE) team at Georgetown University in Washington. As the only UK based trainer it was a privilege to be part of the team. It also provided me with some invaluable connections to people who had been developing the science of active bystandership for many decades.
Active bystandership is simply the power of third parties through their action to reduce harm. I write more about the term here. https://grahamgoulden.com/2025/08/25/active-bystandership-what-is-it/
In this blog I want to share my thoughts on how the term bystander must be better defined and how the current dictionary definition is misleading many leaders and organisations causing them to ignore this invaluable science which has helped many other similar settings including policing in the US to reduce harm and support officer wellbeing.
The dictionary definition of bystander is unhelpful in describing active bystandership because it typically emphasises inaction or passivity, which contrasts with the proactive role of an active bystander, the key component of active bystandership
Most dictionaries define a bystander as “A person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.” This suggests someone who observes but remains uninvolved—neutral, passive, or even indifferent.
So Why This Is Unhelpful for Active Bystandership? – Active bystandership refers to when a person witnesses a harmful or problematic situation and chooses to intervene in some way to prevent or stop it. In likes of policing for example that might include:
- Challenging bad behaviour
- Correcting an error in search procedure or handcuffing
- Helping someone in distress. This could include a prisoner who, whilst being correctly restrained, may be suffering a medical episode
- Supporting a colleague who is a victim of bullying.
- Checking in with a colleague who appears to be struggling with their workload.
So, calling someone an active bystander seems contradictory under the traditional definition—how can someone both “not take part” and “intervene”?
Using only the dictionary definition masks the power and responsibility people have in shaping social situations. For me it also leads to shame as the passive term fails to acknowledge the reality that speaking up is easier said than done. Teaching active bystandership is about shifting this idea, from passivity to empowerment. The dictionary definition reinforces passivity, whereas active bystandership is about taking responsibility and action in the face of harm. The traditional meaning overlooks the potential for bystanders to be powerful agents of positive change.
Furthermore, the dictionary definition treats all bystanders the same, as passive observers. Remember when you observe a harmful situation you are present. It’s what happens next that matters and it’s something that needs discussed.
Bystander behaviour exists on a spectrum which includes:
- Watches and does nothing. In many cases watching is sufficient and all that a person can do in a situation where physical assault may occur
- Indirect helper: Tells someone else or offers help after the fact.
- Direct intervener: Steps in during the event.
Active bystandership includes all these active, moral choices, and more, which are excluded in the dictionary’s narrow definition.
The dictionary presents bystanders as neutral and uninvolved, which implies they bear no responsibility for what happens. But in many real-life situations (e.g., bullying, harassment, hate crimes), silence or inaction can be interpreted as implicit approval, complicity or a missed opportunity to prevent harm. In my work with the ABLE programme, I’ve been told by numerous experts in the field “make sure people know what happens when they do nothing”. I’ve seen many senior UK police leaders move straight to using the term ‘upstander’. Why? “Because it sounds better” is the usual response from someone who knows very little about the subject. Active bystandership reframes this role as morally significant, whereas the dictionary definition avoids this ethical and important conversation.
The traditional definition doesn’t reflect the modern use of the term in fields like:
- Education and anti-bullying programs
- Sexual violence prevention
- Social justice movements
- Workplace ethics training
In these contexts, bystander is no longer a neutral term. It’s about choosing whether to act in the face of injustice or harm. In my opinion the dictionary hasn’t kept up with these evolving meanings. The dictionary portrays bystanders as people who “do not take part” — as if they’re merely observers without power. But everyone who witnesses a situation has agency. They have two choices; do nothing or do something. Active bystandership emphasises the power of individuals to change outcomes, which the dictionary definition ignores.
In the work I do this definition of the term bystander by psychologist Dr Ervin Staub supports what i have discussed above. His research over the last 50 years defines a bystander “as someone who is present and in a position to do something”. A much better definition and one that supports a range of conversations that will better motivate people to act.
Was Martin Luther King trying to warn us when he said – “In the end we will remember, not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends”. Silence has consequences and it must be discussed.
Lastly my own experience teaching active bystandership confirms the dictionary definition can cause confusion. I often hear comments like
- “Wait… I thought bystanders don’t get involved?”
- “How can I be an ‘active bystander’ if that’s a contradiction?”
The disconnect between definition, the science and application make the dictionary meaning more of a barrier than a help in educational or social settings. Again, this is why I always start my sessions with a discussion on what is meant by the term active bystandership. The term upstander is too simplistic and can shame people. I get why some prefer it, it does sound better however ask yourself what you want to achieve?
This past week UK policing has again been the subject of public scrutiny. The BBC Panorama has again focused a spotlight on policing which will continue the erosion of trust in the profession. Many will simply focus on the actions of the few who were observed behaving badly. My focus, as ever will be on the majority who continue to struggle to speak up when they witness misconduct. Until UK policing makes better use of the science of active bystandership and apply it correctly, it will continue to see the actions of a minority making the headlines.
Thanks for reading.
grahamgoulden.com 