Dealing with—or Reporting—‘Unacceptable’ Behavior People in organizations often see behavior that they think is unacceptable, unsafe, illegal—even criminal. Why do people who observe such behavior hesitate to act on their own, or to come forward promptly—even when affected by that behavior? Why do they not immediately report those whom they see to be acting in an intolerable fashion?
Hesitation of this kind has been recognized for years; for example, there is a controversial literature about
the “bystander effect.” In real life hesitation is not confined just to bystanders. People in all roles may hesitate to act. Why do some people—including many managers—waver, rather than acting effectively to stop behavior they find to be unacceptable? The most common reasons for hesitation are: fear of loss of relationships, and loss of privacy, fear of
unspecified “bad consequences” or retaliation, and insufficient evidence. There are many other barriers and they are often complex. Perceptions of the organization and of supervisors are important, as is a complaint system that is seen to be safe, accessible and credible. Some people do act on the spot or come forward when they see unacceptable behavior. Reviewing the reasoning of people with whom we have talked may provide ideas for employers designing or reviewing a conflict management system.
The Importance of Bystanders in Threat Assessment and Management Bystanders—those who observe or come to know about potential wrongdoing—are often the best source of pre-attack intelligence, including indicators of intent and “warning” behaviors. They are the reason that some planned attacks are foiled before they occur. Numerous studies of targeted violence (e.g., mass shootings and school shootings), have demonstrated that peers and bystanders often have knowledge of an attacker’s intentions, concerning communication, and troubling behavior before the attack occurs. This chapter describes—with
empirical support—why threat assessment professionals should consider bystanders; outlines a model for understanding bystander decision making; reviews common barriers to bystander reporting; and suggests ways to mitigate those barriers, to engage bystanders at an individual level, and to improve reporting. The principal aim of threat assessment is to prevent (primarily) intentional acts of harm. When tragic incidents of planned violence occur, however, it is almost always uncovered “that someone knew something” about the attack before it happened. This happens because, as attack plans unfold, people in several different roles may know, or come to know, something about what is happening before harm occurs. The perpetrators know, and so may others, including targets, family members, friends, co-workers, or even casual observers.