I was recently working with a world-leading hospitality company when someone from the people team made a statement that really impressed me. The staff member said to an assembled group of leaders, “Just because you report a colleague doesn’t mean they will always lose their job.” I thought, what a great response. Not because it suggests that misconduct should be ignored. Not because accountability is unimportant, but because it recognises something fundamental about human behaviour.
First, it recognises that people are often reluctant to act when they fear the consequences of their actions could result in a colleague being dismissed. For some that’s a massive burden and a step too far. A report a few years back into NHS cultures in the UK highlighted a reluctance to report a colleague due to a perceived overreaction to misconduct by management.
In my own profession of policing, I’ve noticed a ‘freeze response’ to misconduct issues. Reeling from constant public scrutiny and a loss of trust and confidence in the profession, a default to dismissal is likely.
Secondly, the statement also recognises the impact of burnout and fatigue and its connection to poor wellbeing. If we want to build workplaces where colleagues look out for each other, we need to understand both that fear and the impact of poor wellbeing on some behaviours.
The Decision To Speak Up
Imagine a member of staff sees a colleague making an inappropriate comment to another employee. Perhaps it’s sexist language. Perhaps it’s bullying. They know something isn’t right. They have a choice. They can say something informally:
“Mate, that wasn’t okay.” They can check in: “Are you alright? You’ve seemed different recently.” Or they can report the concern to a manager or HR. But before they act, they may ask themselves: “What will happen to my colleague?” “Will they lose their job?” “Will I be seen as disloyal?” “Will people think I’m causing trouble?”
“What if I’ve misunderstood the situation?” These questions matter because the person who witnesses the behaviour may care about everyone involved. They may care about the person affected, the colleague responsible and the organisation they work for.
The above ‘train of thought’ creates a dilemma. How do I do the right thing without feeling that I am destroying someone’s career? The HR statement above offers an important answer. Reporting a concern is not the same as deciding the outcome.
Fear is a powerful inhibitor of action. Research into workplace silence has consistently identified fear of negative consequences as an important reason why employees do not speak up. The research highlights how employees may remain silent because they anticipate personal or professional consequences from speaking up. This is particularly relevant to active bystandership.
We often ask people to intervene when they see something wrong. We tell them that they have a responsibility to act, but responsibility alone is not enough. People also need to feel that they have permission to act. They need to believe that their organisation will listen. They need to know what happens when they raise a concern and importantly they need confidence that the response will be fair. If an employee believes that reporting a colleague automatically means dismissal, they may decide that silence is the safer option. Not because they don’t care. Because they do. They care about the consequences. Reporting is not punishment. This is where the HR statement becomes so powerful.
Raising a concern.
A colleague brings something to the organisation’s attention. In understanding what happened the organisation considers the facts, the context and the people involved. The organisation determines what action is appropriate. These are not the same thing. The person reporting a concern should not have to decide the punishment before they decide to speak. That is the responsibility of the organisation and that distinction can make a real difference.
Research on employee voice and internal whistleblowing identifies fear of retaliation, damage to reputation and being labelled disloyal as important barriers to reporting.
When employees believe that speaking up will result in negative consequences for themselves or others, they are less likely to act. So, a message from HR that communicates fairness and proportionate decision-making can help remove one of those barriers. It tells employees: “You can raise a concern. You don’t have to decide what happens next.”
From informal intervention to formal reporting
This is where I see a direct connection with active bystandership. Active bystandership is not simply about reporting people. It is about motivating, equipping and empowering ordinary people to do remarkable things when it matters. Sometimes that means taking a small, informal action. A quiet word. A check-in. A challenge. A conversation. Sometimes it means formally reporting a concern. Both are important.
Consider a colleague who hears another employee make an inappropriate comment about a female member of staff. They might say: “Mate, I don’t think that was okay.”
That is an informal intervention. It may be enough to stop the behaviour and create an opportunity for reflection. But if the behaviour is serious, repeated or part of a wider pattern, the colleague may need to escalate the concern. They might speak to a manager, HR or another appropriate reporting route.
The two actions are not in competition. They are part of the same culture. We look out for each other informally, and we report concerns when necessary. The HR statement helps create the conditions for both.
The Importance Of Psychological Safety
Research by Amy Edmondson and others has shown the importance of psychological safety in organisations. Psychological safety is the belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, admitting mistakes or speaking up about concerns. It does not mean that people are free from accountability. It means they believe they can speak honestly without being humiliated or unfairly punished for doing so. That distinction is essential.
A psychologically safe workplace is not a workplace where anything goes. It is a workplace where people feel able to raise concerns, learn from mistakes and challenge behaviour. Ethical leadership and coworker behaviour also influence internal reporting of unethical conduct. Research highlights the importance of the social environment in which employees make decisions about speaking up. People look at what leaders do. They look at what colleagues do. They look at what happens to those who raise concerns, and they form beliefs about whether it is safe to act. A simple cost-benefit analysis.
Again, that is why the words from HR matter. They are a cultural signal. They communicate that reporting a concern is not automatically an act of betrayal. It is an opportunity for the organisation to understand and respond. Compassion and accountability can coexist. A colleague may behave badly because of stress, poor wellbeing, personal difficulties or a lack of awareness. That does not excuse the behaviour. More, it may help explain it and understanding the circumstances can help an organisation decide what response is appropriate. Perhaps the person needs support. Perhaps they need coaching. Perhaps they need a difficult conversation. Perhaps formal disciplinary action is necessary. Perhaps dismissal is the appropriate outcome.
The point is that the response should be based on the facts and the seriousness of the behaviour, not on an automatic assumption that every report must end someone’s employment. This is particularly relevant to my wider work around policing, wellbeing and misconduct. We should never use wellbeing as an excuse for harmful behaviour, but neither should we assume that punishment alone will always address the underlying problem.
A good culture should protect people from harm while also protecting the possibility of people learning, changing and recovering. The danger of saying the right thing but doing the wrong thing in the eyes of the culture is a real issue for staff.
Of course, the HR statement must be backed up by action. If employees raise concerns and nothing happens, trust will disappear. If people report issues and are treated badly, others will notice. If the organisation says it welcomes reporting but creates a culture of fear, the words become meaningless. Research into employee voice repeatedly identifies perceived futility as a barrier to speaking up.
People are less likely to report when they believe that doing so will achieve nothing.
So, organisations need to demonstrate that concerns are taken seriously. That does not mean sharing confidential disciplinary details. It means providing appropriate feedback. The employee may not know the final outcome but they should know that their action mattered. That is how trust is built.
A workplace where people feel able to speak up is more likely to identify problems early. It is more likely to challenge inappropriate behaviour. It is more likely to support colleagues who are struggling, and it is more likely to prevent small problems from becoming bigger ones.
This requires more than a policy. It requires a shared understanding of what it means to look out for each other. It requires leaders to model the behaviour. It requires colleagues to feel that they have permission to act, and it requires reporting systems that are trusted. The message could be simple:
“Around here, we look out for each other. We speak up early. We report concerns when necessary. And we believe in fair, proportionate responses.”
The Bigger Lesson
What impressed me most about the HR statement is that it recognises something many organisations miss. People don’t always remain silent because they don’t care. Sometimes they remain silent because they care about what might happen if they speak.
The statement helps resolve that dilemma I introduced at the start. It tells employees: “You don’t have to choose between being a good colleague and raising a concern.” That is the foundation of an active bystandership culture. The standard we set
The role of a good culture isn’t just to protect good people; it’s also to protect the good in people. That includes the colleague who has been harmed. It includes the person who has behaved badly, and it includes the person who has the courage to speak up because reporting a colleague is not the same as condemning a colleague.
When we create workplaces where people feel safe to do that, we move closer to the culture we all want to be part of. A culture where people don’t simply watch out for themselves. They actively look out for each other.
grahamgoulden.com 