Bullying and harassment are rarely the product of a single individual. They emerge where organisational conditions allow standards to be applied inconsistently, behaviour to go unchallenged and concerns to remain unheard. This tool helps leaders identify the conditions that allow harmful behaviour to take root, spread and persist.
The examples below illustrate the types of organisational conditions commonly associated with each area. They are intended to prompt reflection rather than serve as an exhaustive checklist.
The Slippery Slope®
A firm at this stage has established conditions that make sustained bullying difficult. Standards of conduct are consistently applied, concerns are addressed before they become embedded and managing people is recognised as a professional capability rather than an expectation attached to seniority.
This is the point at which organisational conditions begin to change. Individual incidents may appear manageable in isolation, but recurring patterns are becoming visible. Firms that recognise these signals early are still in a position to intervene before they become structural features of the culture.
The underlying conditions have existed for some time and are now reflected in complaints, investigations, unwanted departures and declining confidence in the organisation’s ability to respond.
Attention shifts from prevention to recovery, although the range of available options is considerably narrower than it was earlier.
⚠️ Mock-up: Section ONE only. Sections TWO and THREE will appear in the final version.
These conditions indicate whether the standards a firm describes publicly are reflected consistently in day-to-day decisions and behaviour.
Questions to reflect on
How quickly would you know if you had a bullying problem?
Would your systems resolve it before people started withdrawing, getting hurt or leaving?
Want to understand what this means for your firm?
Arrisan works with law firm leaders, HR directors and people managers to identify and address the organisational conditions behind harmful behaviour — before they escalate into something harder to resolve.
Get in touchBullying and harassment are rarely the product of a single individual. They emerge where organisational conditions allow standards to be applied inconsistently, behaviour to go unchallenged and concerns to remain unheard. This tool helps leaders identify the conditions that allow harmful behaviour to take root, spread and persist.
The Slippery Slope®
A firm at this stage has established conditions that make sustained bullying difficult. Standards of conduct are consistently applied, concerns are addressed before they become embedded and managing people is recognised as a professional capability rather than an expectation attached to seniority.
This is the point at which organisational conditions begin to change. Individual incidents may appear manageable in isolation, but recurring patterns are becoming visible. Firms that recognise these signals early are still in a position to intervene before they become structural features of the culture.
The underlying conditions have existed for some time and are now reflected in complaints, investigations, unwanted departures and declining confidence in the organisation’s ability to respond.
Attention shifts from prevention to recovery, although the range of available options is considerably narrower than it was earlier.
These conditions indicate whether the standards a firm describes publicly are reflected consistently in day-to-day decisions and behaviour.
- The same standards of conduct apply regardless of seniority, team, revenue generation, personality or influence.
- Comparable behaviour receives a comparable response.
- Concerns about conduct are examined on their merits.
- High-performing individuals repeatedly receive informal warnings rather than formal action.
- Managers ask HR whether someone is “worth dealing with” before deciding how to respond.
- Employees privately advise colleagues to “avoid reporting them.”
- Leaders describe behaviour using phrases like “that’s just how they operate.”
- Internal jokes emerge about certain people being “untouchable.”
- Colleagues begin coaching new joiners how to manage around particular people.
- Psychological safety declines as employees lose confidence in leadership.
- High-potential employees disengage because progression appears political rather than merit-based.
- Collaboration reduces as trust deteriorates.
- Time is spent navigating personalities instead of serving clients.
- Greater likelihood of grievances involving allegations of inconsistent treatment or discrimination.
- Multiple subcultures emerge with different behavioural norms.
- Clients experience inconsistent service depending on team.
- Recruitment reputation suffers through informal market networks.
- Behavioural history carries real weight in every appointment, promotion and leadership decision, not just commercial performance.
- How results are achieved is just as important as the results themselves.
- Promotion and reward discussions rarely reference behavioural evidence.
- 360 feedback is discounted when commercial performance is strong.
- Exit interviews reference disappointment with leadership.
- Teams delivering strong financial results consistently report poor engagement.
- High performers have noticeably higher turnover beneath them.
- Leadership credibility weakens.
- Future leaders model the behaviours they see rewarded.
- Diverse talent disproportionately exits where poor behaviour goes unchecked.
- Higher recruitment costs to replace experienced leavers.
- Greater legal exposure where documented concerns were ignored during appointments.
- Knowledge sharing declines.
- Conduct issues become concentrated among commercially critical people, increasing organisational vulnerability.
These conditions determine whether problems can actually be seen and heard by people with the authority to act.
- People raise concerns, formally and informally, and trust that something will happen.
- The cost of speaking up is lower than the cost of staying silent.
- Grievances remain low despite high turnover in particular teams.
- Exit interviews reveal concerns that were never previously raised.
- Employees ask for anonymous conversations.
- Increased requests for team transfers without clear career reasons.
- Employees seek advice externally before using internal channels.
- Speak-up surveys report confidence significantly below engagement scores.
- Problems become invisible until they are serious.
- Rumour replaces open dialogue.
- More disruption from sudden resignations.
- Greater likelihood of employment claims because internal resolution opportunities were missed.
- Leaders actively seek out perspectives beyond their usual circle.
- Leaders know the difference between the firm they’re leading and the firm employees experience.
- One-on-one meetings are consistently cancelled.
- Employee survey results surprise senior leaders.
- Promotions repeatedly come from the same sponsor networks.
- Leaders receive overwhelmingly positive feedback that conflicts with wider employee sentiment.
- Decisions about trust, authority and responsibility made on an incomplete picture compound.
- The same people continue to be promoted and protected.
- Poor operational decisions based on incomplete information.
- Concerns about an individual are tracked over time and across teams, not assessed as one-off events.
- Every complaint or departure is treated as information about the system, not just a problem to close.
- Multiple complaints involve the same individual.
- Different business units separately address similar behaviour.
- HR cannot easily identify repeat names across cases.
- Exit interviews, grievances and sickness absence are analysed separately.
- Teams experiencing repeated departures receive no organisational review.
- Repeated investigations consume increasing leadership time.
- Avoidable attrition continues year after year.
- Failure to identify patterns weakens organisational defence if challenged externally.
These conditions relate to more entrenched patterns, where the organisational architecture itself has become part of the problem.
- People management is treated as a skill that’s taught and assessed, not one assumed to come with seniority or technical excellence.
- Managers avoid difficult conversations until HR intervenes.
- Feedback is only given during performance problems.
- Managers default to criticism rather than coaching.
- New managers receive little practical leadership development.
- Similar issues recur because underlying management capability never improves.
- Teams experience leadership very differently depending on who they report to.
- Managers cannot resolve issues fairly and constructively.
- Avoidance of difficult conversations allows tensions to build until they become formal disputes.
- Higher absence and lower engagement.
- Increased regretted attrition, particularly among high performers with strong external opportunities.
- Lower team productivity due to unclear expectations, unresolved conflict and inconsistent management.
- Higher rate of grievances, investigations or employment claims.
- Hours, resourcing and availability stay within limits people can sustain.
- Overload is treated as a risk to manage, not a badge of commitment.
- Increased emotional reactivity such as sharp emails, impatient comments and loss of composure in otherwise capable people.
- Increasing “always on” behaviour.
- Annual leave regularly cancelled.
- More conflict over small issues.
- Behaviours that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances are excused as situational.
- Burnout, attrition and supervision failures.
- More mistakes.
- Slower turnaround.
- Client dissatisfaction.
- Reduced innovation because everyone is firefighting.
- HR, Legal and Risk operate with real authority.
- No individual, however valuable, sits outside their reach.
- HR or Risk teams feel sidelined on specific matters.
- Decisions about individuals are made informally, without proper process.
- Settlement discussions begin before investigations.
- Risk registers omit known behavioural concerns.
- Senior leaders ask for “off the record” advice.
- Confidence in organisational fairness declines.
- Leaders become less willing to challenge influential individuals.
- HR and Risk teams become increasingly reactive rather than strategic, leading to frustration and attrition in key governance roles.
- Higher external legal, investigation and advisory costs/time.
- Commercial decisions become constrained by unresolved conduct risks.
- Weak governance makes it harder to demonstrate that the organisation took reasonable steps to prevent harmful behaviour.
Questions to reflect on
How quickly would you know if you had a bullying problem?
Would your systems resolve it before people started withdrawing, getting hurt or leaving?
Want to understand what this means for your firm?
Arrisan works with law firm leaders, HR directors and people managers to identify and address the organisational conditions behind harmful behaviour — before they escalate into something harder to resolve.
Get in touch