A lot of bystander training fails to create the social conditions where people feel able to act. Whilst training teaches people how to act It’s culture that determines whether they will.
Across workplaces, police services, schools, universities and community organisations, there has been a growing investment in bystander training. The logic is straightforward: if people witness bullying, harassment, discrimination, abuse or misconduct, they should have the confidence and skills to intervene. As a result, much of bystander training focuses on providing practical tools.
Participants are taught how to challenge behaviour directly, distract from a situation, support a victim, report concerns or seek assistance from others. These interventions are valuable and necessary. Yet there is a fundamental question that often receives far less attention: Do people feel they have permission to act? Because knowing how to intervene and feeling able to intervene are not the same thing. In fact, in many organisations and social groups, the greatest barrier to bystander action is not a lack of skills. It is the belief that speaking up is somehow unacceptable, risky or disloyal.
This challenge is particularly visible in police cultures and male peer groups, where powerful social norms can either encourage intervention or suppress it.
The Problem Isn’t Always Capability
When misconduct occurs, our instinct is often to assume that people failed to act because they did not know what to do. Sometimes that is true. More often, however, people already possess a range of options. They could ask a question, express concern, check in with someone affected, challenge a comment or report what they have seen. The problem is not the absence of possible actions. The problem is uncertainty about whether those actions will be accepted by the group.
Human beings are social creatures. We constantly monitor the behaviour of those around us to understand what is expected, rewarded and punished. Psychologists have long demonstrated that social norms exert enormous influence over behaviour, often outweighing personal beliefs and values. People may privately disagree with harmful conduct yet remain silent if they believe speaking up will damage relationships, status or belonging. In these moments, the issue is not capability. It is permission.
Why Culture Matters More Than Training
Every group develops formal rules and informal rules. Formal rules are written in policies, procedures and codes of conduct. Informal rules are learned through observation. People notice who gets promoted. They notice who gets criticised. They notice what behaviours are ignored and which behaviours attract support.
Over time, these observations create a powerful understanding of what is truly expected. An organisation may have an excellent anti-bullying policy, but if those who raise concerns are labelled troublemakers, employees quickly learn that silence is safer. A team may claim to value inclusion, but if discriminatory jokes are routinely laughed off, members learn what behaviour is genuinely tolerated. This is why awareness campaigns and training programmes sometimes fail to produce lasting change. They provide knowledge but leave underlying norms untouched. People do not simply act according to what they know. They act according to what they believe they are allowed to do.
US psychologist John Dovidio introduced the idea that were costs outweigh benefits people don’t act. Despite seeing a problem and having skills to act, the perceived costs of intervention stops them.
The Challenge Within Police Culture
Policing offers a particularly important example. Most police officers enter the profession with a strong desire to help people, protect communities and uphold justice. Yet numerous inquiries and reviews across the United Kingdom have highlighted occasions where problematic behaviours persisted despite being witnessed by others. The question is why. One explanation lies in the tension between professional values and group loyalty.
In high-pressure environments, strong bonds develop between colleagues. These bonds can be a source of resilience, trust and operational effectiveness. However, they can also create powerful pressures to conform. Unwritten messages sometimes emerge: “Don’t undermine your colleagues.” “Don’t make life difficult for the team.” “Don’t be the person who causes problems.”
These expectations are rarely stated explicitly. Nevertheless, they can become deeply embedded in organisational culture.
As a result, officers may face a dilemma. Challenging misconduct is consistent with their professional values, yet doing so may feel inconsistent with the expectations of the group.
The fear of social exclusion, damaged relationships or career consequences can become stronger than the desire to intervene. Again, costs v benefits form part of an officers internal dialog. This helps explain why providing intervention techniques alone is insufficient. Officers may know exactly what they should do but still hesitate if they believe they do not have permission to do it.
Male Peer Groups and the Silence of Good Men
A similar dynamic can be found within many male peer groups. Conversations about violence against women, sexism and harassment often focus on changing the behaviour of perpetrators. Equally important, however, is understanding why so many decent men remain silent when they witness problematic behaviour. Again, the answer frequently lies in group norms.
Many men grow up absorbing unwritten rules about masculinity. Do not appear weak. Do not be overly emotional. Do not challenge your friends. Do not create awkwardness. Do not take things too seriously. These expectations can make intervention feel socially costly.
A man who challenges a sexist joke may worry about being ridiculed. Someone who questions inappropriate behaviour may fear being seen as disloyal or self-righteous. Consequently, silence becomes the easier option.
Importantly, silence should not automatically be interpreted as agreement. Research on social norms demonstrates that people often misjudge the views of those around them. Many group members privately reject harmful behaviour but assume everyone else accepts it. Psychologists refer to this as pluralistic ignorance. Everyone remains silent because they believe they are alone, when many others share the same concerns.
The result is a culture where harmful behaviour appears more accepted than it truly is.
Creating Permission to Act
If organisations and communities want more bystander intervention, they must move beyond teaching skills and focus on creating permission. This requires visible leadership. Leaders need to communicate clearly that intervention is expected, valued and supported. It requires role models.
When respected individuals challenge inappropriate behaviour, they demonstrate that speaking up is normal rather than exceptional. It requires recognition. Stories of positive intervention should be shared and celebrated. People need evidence that acting in accordance with organisational values leads to respect rather than punishment. Most importantly, it requires psychological safety.
People must believe they can raise concerns without fear of retaliation, humiliation or exclusion. When these conditions exist, intervention becomes far easier. Individuals no longer feel they are acting against the group. Instead, they feel they are acting on behalf of it. Loyalty begins to take on new meaning.
From Heroism to Culture
The goal of active bystandership is often misunderstood. It is not about producing a small number of exceptionally courageous people. It is about creating environments where ordinary people feel authorised to do ordinary things that prevent harm. A question, a conversation, a challenge, a check-in. These actions rarely require extraordinary bravery. What they require is confidence that the group supports them.
As social psychologist Ervin Staub has argued throughout his work, caring and helping behaviours grow when communities nurture and reinforce them. People become active bystanders not simply because they possess the right skills, but because their environment encourages them to use those skills. That is why permission matters so much. Training teaches people how to act. Culture determines whether they will.
If we want safer police organisations, safer maternity wings, healthier workplaces and more responsible male peer groups, we must focus not only on giving people tools but also on creating the social conditions that make those tools usable. Because the most powerful message a culture can send is not, “Here is how to intervene.” It is, “Around here, intervention is what we do.” When people believe that bystander action stops being an act of individual courage and becomes a shared social norm. That is where lasting cultural change begins.
grahamgoulden.com 