That’s a big leap don’t you think? For me mainstream media continues to be full of stories which are connected. Far too often we simply look at what’s happened and move on. We may display anger or frustration however we rarely take a step back and ask what’s happening and why has this happened.
When serious harm occurs in organisations, our first instinct is usually to ask, “Who is to blame?” We look for the bad individual, the rogue employee or the immoral leader. It is an understandable response. Identifying a villain feels satisfying because it reassures us that the problem lies with a few flawed people rather than with the systems we have built. The reality is very different. Decades of social psychology tell a different story.
Whether we are examining the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, allegations of safeguarding failures surrounding Married at First Sight UK, bullying in the armed forces, misconduct in policing or harassment in the workplace, the same uncomfortable question emerges: What was it about the situation that allowed ordinary people to participate, remain silent or fail to intervene?
This is not about excusing behaviour. Individuals remain responsible for their actions. Rather, it is about recognising that situations can exert extraordinary influence over human behaviour. If we fail to understand that influence, we will continue responding to scandals after they happen rather than preventing them in the first place.
The power of the situation
Social psychologists have long argued that behaviour is shaped as much by context as by character.
Philip Zimbardo famously described this as the Lucifer Effect: the process by which ordinary people can become capable of extraordinary harm when immersed in powerful situations.
Ervin Staub reached similar conclusions through his study of genocide, mass violence and altruism. Harm rarely begins with extreme acts. Instead, it evolves gradually. Small acts of wrongdoing become tolerated. Boundaries shift. Silence becomes normal. Each unchallenged act makes the next one easier. Abuse is rarely an event. It is a process.
Abu Ghraib: A system that enabled abuse
The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison shocked the world in 2004. Images of prisoners being humiliated, threatened and tortured appeared almost beyond comprehension. Many initially described those involved as a few “bad apples.” Subsequent investigations painted a more complicated picture.
Poor leadership, inadequate supervision, unclear expectations, operational pressure, dehumanisation of detainees and an absence of accountability created an environment in which abusive behaviour became increasingly normalised. Perhaps most disturbing was the number of people who witnessed concerning behaviour without stopping it. This was not simply individual failure. It was organisational failure.
Reality television and the same psychological processes
Clearly, a reality television programme is not comparable in severity to a military prison. The harms are fundamentally different. Yet some of the psychological mechanisms appear remarkably similar.
Recent criticism of Married at First Sight UK has centred not only on allegations involving participants but on wider questions about safeguarding, welfare and production decisions. Public debate has focused on whether producers created situations where emotional vulnerability, conflict and sexual relationships were encouraged in pursuit of compelling television. Again, the key question is not simply whether one individual behaved badly. It is whether the environment increased the likelihood of harm while reducing the likelihood that someone would intervene.
When entertainment becomes the dominant objective, safeguarding can gradually become secondary. When ratings become the measure of success, warning signs risk becoming production challenges rather than safeguarding concerns. No one sets out intending to create harmful environments. But harmful environments can emerge when systems reward the wrong behaviours.
Why good people stay silent
One of the greatest myths surrounding organisational harm is that people simply “don’t care.”
In reality, many people experience discomfort long before they act. Research into the bystander effect helps explain why.
People ask themselves:
- Surely someone more senior knows.
- Perhaps I’m overreacting.
- It’s probably not my responsibility.
- I don’t want to make things worse.
- Maybe this is just how things work here.
Each thought appears reasonable in isolation. Collectively, they create organisational paralysis.
Silence then becomes interpreted as agreement. Agreement becomes the new norm. The situation becomes increasingly powerful. The situation not only creates victims and perpetrators of harm. It also creates passive bystanders.
Culture is created through repeated inaction
We often describe organisational culture as “the way we do things around here.” A more accurate definition might be “Culture is what repeatedly goes unchallenged.” Every ignored sexist joke. Every bullying comment. Every safeguarding concern quietly dismissed. Every abusive leader protected because they deliver results. Each one sends a signal. People quickly learn which behaviours are rewarded, tolerated or ignored. Culture is not created by mission statements.
It is created by thousands of everyday responses to difficult situations.
Active bystandership changes the situation
Many organisations introduce active bystander training by teaching people intervention techniques.
These tools matter however they are only part of the answer. People already know how to ask questions. They know how to check on someone’s welfare. They know how to report concerns.
The greater challenge is creating situations where people feel permitted to do these things.
Permission changes behaviour.
When leaders consistently reward people who speak up, intervention becomes normal.
When colleagues visibly support one another, courage becomes contagious.
When near misses are openly discussed instead of hidden, learning replaces blame. In other words, active bystandership changes the situation itself. Rather than relying on exceptional heroes, it creates ordinary cultures where intervention becomes expected.
Leaders shape the psychological climate
Leadership is not simply about setting rules. It is about shaping what feels psychologically possible.
Employees constantly observe leaders for clues. What happens when someone raises a concern? Who gets promoted? Who gets protected? Who gets ignored? If speaking up damages careers, silence becomes rational.
If intervention is recognised and valued, people become significantly more willing to act.
Every leadership decision sends a message about what kind of organisation this really is.
From reactive organisations to preventative organisations
Most safeguarding systems activate after harm has occurred. Investigations begin. Policies are rewritten. Training is introduced. Individuals are disciplined. These responses are necessary but they are fundamentally reactive. Active bystandership offers something different. It asks organisations to identify the situations that allow harm to evolve before those situations produce victims.
Active bystandership provides people in any workplace with a third option. Currently where a code of ethics exists staff usually see only two options. Do nothing or report. Both aren’t’ great options. Here’s why.
Option 1 – Do nothing. When you fail to report a code of ethics breach you are likely to find yourself in trouble.
Option 2 – Report. When you speak up you expose yourself to the ‘potential’ of being seen as the troublemaker, the whistleblower, the snitch, the grass etc etc
Active bystandership offers a third and much better option, to report before a code of ethics breach occurs. This is a much better option for people as it works to remove the challenges i discuss above.
That shift is transformational. Because situations can be redesigned. Norms can be reshaped.
Psychological safety can be strengthened. Cultures can evolve.
Prevention begins long before crisis
The greatest success of active bystandership is not measured by dramatic interventions.
It is measured by the crises that never happen. The offensive joke challenged before it becomes harassment. The isolated colleague included before wellbeing deteriorates. The safeguarding concern raised before someone is harmed. The unethical decision questioned before it becomes scandal. None of these actions make headlines. But together they prevent them.
Jobs are saved, relationships are strengthened, trust is built, mental health crises are addressed and headlines avoided.
The real lesson
The scandals that dominate our news are often presented as stories of individual misconduct. They are also stories about situations, cultures, leadership and silence and countless moments when ordinary people had opportunities to influence events but did not feel able, empowered or expected to act. This is why active bystandership matters. Not because it teaches people to become heroes, but because it helps organisations build environments where doing the right thing becomes the easiest thing to do.
The ultimate goal is not to create more courageous individuals. It is to create organisations in which courage is ordinary, intervention is expected, and harmful situations struggle to take root. History repeatedly teaches us the same lesson: while situations possess enormous power to shape behaviour, they are themselves shaped by people. Every organisation has the capacity to design cultures where respect, accountability and safeguarding become the norm rather than the exception.
That is the promise of active bystandership. It is not simply a response to harm—it is one of the most practical ways of preventing it.
grahamgoulden.com 