This blog focuses on the emerging story of PC Alan Greer, who, after an investigation after his suicide, has committed numerous sexual offences and attempted murder. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3v0rq66q3no
“Senior officers insisted there were no opportunities to spot his offending sooner.”
The above statement, made in response to the emerging case of PC Alan Greer, may ultimately prove to be factually correct. It is entirely possible that no one witnessed the crimes he committed. It is also possible that there was no single complaint or intelligence report from within his policing organisation that would have clearly identified him as a serial sexual predator.
For me as someone who has a focus on workplace culture that is not the only question we should be asking. When organisations respond to shocking acts of violence or abuse, there is a natural tendency to focus on the individual offender. We ask who they were, what they did, and whether anyone could have identified them sooner. These are legitimate questions. Yet they often overshadow another question that deserves equal attention: What kind of culture surrounded that individual?
While organisations cannot always predict who will commit serious offences, they can influence whether harmful attitudes, behaviours and warning signs are challenged or ignored. They can also create cultures where the role modelling of respectful behaviours and attitudes is the norm. By doing so you support the good in your staff, as well as sending a powerful message to officers like PC Greer, that their abusive and harmful attitudes won’t be accepted.
Beyond the “Bad Apple”
The “bad apple” explanation is attractive because it is simple. It reassures us that the problem lies with one deviant individual rather than the organisation itself. If the offender was uniquely manipulative, uniquely deceptive or uniquely dangerous, then perhaps nothing more could have been done. We saw this after the conviction of police officer Wayne Couzins for the murder of Sarah Everard. I saw a desperate attempt by the Met police to distance themselves from Couzins. That case may be different in that Couzins attitudes were on display whilst PC Greer’s were not, however my point remains workplace culture shapes the best of us but also the worst.
Decades of research into organisational behaviour, policing, healthcare, aviation and safeguarding tells us that harmful outcomes rarely emerge from individuals alone. Culture matters. Not because culture creates rapists or murderers but because culture shapes what people notice, what they tolerate and what they feel able to challenge.
This distinction is crucial.
An unhealthy culture does not make someone sexually violent. However, it can create an environment where misogyny, bullying, entitlement, abuse of authority or disrespect towards others becomes normalised. Those behaviours are not the crimes, but they may be the soil in which more serious harm grows.
The Behaviour Before the Behaviour
We often judge organisations by whether they prevented the final catastrophic event. In my work prevention begins much earlier.
Long before someone commits serious violence there may be smaller moments that reveal aspects of their thinking. Perhaps it is the sexist joke that everyone laughs off. The degrading comments about women. The abuse of authority. The intimidation of junior colleagues. The inappropriate language. None of these prove future offending.
Most people who display such behaviours will never become serious criminals yet organisations that consistently ignore these behaviours send an important message.
They communicate that challenging them is unnecessary, risky, or simply not worth the effort. That silence really matters.
Silence Is Cultural
One of the most significant findings from research is that people frequently remain silent despite recognising concerns. This isn’t because they do not care. It’s more because they doubt they will be supported.
Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety demonstrates that employees constantly make subconscious calculations before speaking up.
Will anyone listen?
Will I be believed?
Will this affect my career?
Will I become known as the troublemaker?
In policing, where loyalty, solidarity and hierarchy remain powerful cultural forces, these calculations become even more complicated. People may notice something that feels uncomfortable without believing it crosses a formal reporting threshold. Instead of speaking up, they rationalise “It wasn’t that bad”, “Someone else will deal with it”, “I don’t want to make a fuss.” These moments rarely appear in investigations. But collectively they shape organisational culture. Silence provides permission.
In the Greer case he may have hidden his attitudes however did the culture tolerate the harmful attitudes of others? We’ve seen plenty of cases in UK policing in recent years where harmful, sexist and misogynistic attitudes have been clear. My work in violence prevention confirms that a sense of permission comes from a lack of challenge. I use the following quote from Australian Army General David Morrison who said, “The Standard You Walk Past Is The Standard You Accept”.
Active Bystandership Is Not About Predicting Criminals
Whenever active bystandership is discussed after high-profile cases, there is a danger that people misunderstand its purpose. The goal is not to expect colleagues to identify future rapists. That is neither realistic nor fair. Active bystandership is something different. It asks people to notice and respond to behaviours that undermine healthy workplaces before they escalate. It creates environments where challenging disrespect is normal. Where questioning poor behaviour is expected. Where intervention becomes everyone’s responsibility rather than managements alone. Where the role modelling of respect is everyone’s business. It shifts the question from:
“Can you identify a future offender?” to. “Can you help create a culture where harmful attitudes struggle to survive?”
That is a far more achievable goal.
The Myth of Perfect Detection
Whenever serious misconduct is uncovered there is pressure to identify missed warning signs. Sometimes they exist. Often, they do not. Retrospective investigations often create the illusion that the outcome was obvious all along.
Psychologists call this hindsight bias. Once we know what happened, previous behaviours suddenly appear much more significant. The reality is far messier as human behaviour is complex. Most warning signs are ambiguous. No organisation will ever predict every future offender. That should not become the benchmark. Instead, organisations should ask different questions: Did we create the conditions where concerns, however small, could be raised, explored and discussed without fear?
That is a far fairer measure of organisational health.
Culture Is Built Through Small Moments
We often imagine culture as something abstract. In reality, culture is built one interaction at a time.
Every ignored sexist comment.
Every dismissed concern.
Every eye roll when someone raises an issue.
Every manager who chooses convenience over challenge.
Every colleague who says, “That’s just how they are.”
These moments seem insignificant until they accumulate. Equally, healthy cultures grow through equally small actions.
Someone respectfully challenging inappropriate language.
A supervisor thanking someone for speaking up.
A colleague checking in after witnessing concerning behaviour.
Leaders openly discussing standards rather than assuming everyone understands them.
These actions rarely make headlines but over time they become the invisible architecture of prevention.
Leadership Beyond Reassurance
In the aftermath of tragedy, leaders understandably want to reassure the public. They want to explain what happened. They want to demonstrate that systems were followed.
Often reassurance is seen by many as defensiveness. Saying there were no opportunities to identify offending may answer one question. It does not answer whether the organisational culture consistently encouraged challenge or how did the culture contribute to future offending.
The strongest leaders are willing to ask difficult questions even when there are no easy answers, not because they are seeking blame but because they are seeking learning.
Prevention Begins Before Criminality
The most effective organisations understand that safeguarding is not simply about identifying dangerous people. More, it is about creating environments where respect, accountability and courage become everyday behaviours.
In 2016 I had a wonderful opportunity to work with US Baseball team the Chicago Cubs. The CUBS Way was clear was used to create a culture of respect. The Courage to do the right thing, The Urgency to get it done and the Believe that action would make a difference. Joe Maddons idea was simple “What you give, you get back and more”.
This is precisely what active bystandership seeks to achieve. Not perfection. Not prediction but prevention through culture.
The Better Question
Perhaps senior officers are right in there truly were no opportunities to identify Alan Greer’s offending before it became known. If that proves to be the case, it should not end the conversation because there remains another question that may ultimately be even more important.
Did the organisation create a culture where harmful attitudes, inappropriate behaviours and warning signs, however small or ambiguous, were consistently challenged?
That question is harder. It is less comfortable. It rarely produces simple answers. In my view it is the question that has the greatest potential to prevent future harm.
And that is where prevention truly begins.
grahamgoulden.com 