Organisations do not usually set out to tolerate bullying.

Most have policies. Some have training. Respect, integrity and wellbeing are so frequently invoked that the words themselves risk wearing out people's interest. It's all common sense, right?

And yet harmful behaviour remains a stubborn feature of working life.

Does that bother you? It bothers us.

You might expect things to be much better by now. Regulators have focused on culture for years and we're approaching a decade since #MeToo. So are they?

The legal profession provides a useful example. In 2019, the International Bar Association’s Us Too? report described bullying as “rampant” in the legal profession, with around one in six respondents reporting that they had been bullied in the previous year. More than half of bullying incidents were never reported. Six years later, LawCare’s Life in the Law 2025 report shows that harmful workplace behaviour remains a live issue, with around one in eight respondents saying they had felt bullied at work in the preceding 12 months.

These are legal-sector statistics, but the underlying questions are not unique to law. What I have seen in law is relevant far beyond law firms.

The question for any leader is: if we don't intend to tolerate harmful behaviour, what is it about the way our organisation operates that might nevertheless allow it to continue?

That is the question behind the new Slippery Slope® Map: Misconduct Edition.

Rather than focusing on the individuals involved when something goes wrong, the Map looks at the organisational conditions that can allow poor behaviour to emerge, persist and become normalised.

I've spent my career navigating behavioural issues within organisations. I have seen how some workplaces handle these issues well and build trust and commitment. Others risk complicity and organisational betrayal.

This article explores some of those patterns and the questions organisations could ask themselves before a complaint, investigation or regulator forces them to.

There is less consensus than people assume

Part of the challenge is that bullying is harder to define than many people realise.

There is no statutory definition of bullying in the UK. Different organisations define it differently. Some do not define it at all. Two people can experience the same behaviour and reach different conclusions. One may see “firm but fair” management. The other may see clear bullying. This matters because without a solid definition, it is easy to get mired in arguments about labels and subjectivity instead of facts, behaviours and systems.

There is also a second, less comfortable question.

Do organisations expect the same standards of behaviour at all levels?  Do they expect more, or less, of senior people?

Most would say publicly that the same standards apply to everyone, and that the leaders are role models. In practice, things can be more complicated. Some leaders believe their seniority grants them behavioural licence. Others believe seniority brings greater responsibility. Those two beliefs create very different cultures.

The behaviours can be nuanced

The stereotype of the tyrant who shouts and kicks the furniture is the bullying exception, not the rule.

The more common case is more nuanced. The most prevalent forms of bullying reported by the IBA include:

• ridicule or demeaning language

• overbearing supervision

• undermining work output

• constant unproductive criticism

• misuse of power or position

• deliberately giving too much or too little work

• exclusion or victimisation

• spreading malicious rumours

• blocking opportunities.

Kissing up and kicking down, taking the credit and intimidation were constant themes in the 25 years I conducted workplace investigations.

The cumulative effect of these behaviours can be as harmful as more dramatic acts of throwing one’s weight around. Sometimes more so.

Expectations have changed

Many behaviours now described as bullying were once explained away as:

• part and parcel of the job

• demanding

• plain speaking

• challenging

• assertive

• abrasive

• bark but no bite

• well-intentioned

• cultural differences.

That does not necessarily mean behaviour has become worse. Rather, expectations and consequences have changed.

Modern organisations are well versed in talking about belonging, inclusion and psychological safety. People have heard those messages. They may have joined because of them. They expect the day-to-day experience to reflect them.

The gap between what an organisation says and what people actually experience is therefore important. From workplace consultancies to commercial law firms, it can be more tempting to camouflage that gap with LinkedIn posts than to do something about it in reality.

Not all poor behaviour is the same

One mistake organisations make is treating all behavioural concerns as though they come from the same place. They do not.

1. Depletion-driven behaviour

People who are overloaded, stressed, exhausted or burnt out are often more emotionally reactive, and that can manifest itself in a sharp email, an impatient comment or a loss of composure.

The behaviour may be unacceptable, but it may also be situational.

The useful questions are:

• Is the individual behaving badly because they are under unsustainable pressure?

• Is the whole team operating under impossible demands?

• Are workload, staffing, targets, availability expectations or incentive structures contributing to the problem?

LawCare’s 2025 report found high levels of work intensity, with 78.7% working beyond contracted hours, and an average burnout score indicating high burnout risk. That provides a useful example of why the organisational context matters.

The lesson is not that excessive workload excuses poor behaviour. It is that organisations should look at both.

2. Unskilled people management

Some people do not manage others effectively. They rely on pressure, criticism, and control because those are the only tools they know.

Over the years, I have heard leaders make comments that reveal how easily organisations can normalise poor behaviour. One senior leader once sought to reassure me thus: “He’s not bullying. He’s just got a bullying management style.” The comment was made to explain why nothing would be done. Instead, it illustrated the problem perfectly.

Behaviour that would be recognised immediately if seen in isolation often becomes accepted once a normalising explanation is attached to it.

LawCare found that only 54.6% of those with managerial responsibilities had received training to support them in managing people, while 93% thought training should be mandatory for those managing others. They didn’t get input on the quality of that training.

This is not a small point.

A good lawyer does not automatically become a good manager.

Nor does an excellent accountant, consultant, underwriter, banker, actor or executive.

Technical expertise does not automatically translate into people-management capability.

Too many organisations underestimate the importance of management and are happy to let people stay at novice level.

3. Strategic harmful behaviour

The most concerning cases are different again.

These are not people who lose control.

In the most damaging cases I have encountered, the issue has been the ability of certain individuals to shape the environment around behaviour to their will.

They quickly identify where power lies and cultivate influential relationships around it. They control information carefully, take credit visibly and undermine secretly. They operate outside the organisation's guardrails while creating plausible explanations for what they do. They work through others and may seek to neutralise HR, Legal, Risk or other controls by befriending, bypassing, discrediting or isolating those they see as obstacles. They are often hypersensitive to criticism while remaining highly critical of anyone in their way.

If performance systems reward impression over contribution, promotion systems reward confidence over judgement or governance systems can be bypassed through relationships, harmful behaviour has room to survive.

4. The most dangerous person may not be the bully

There is another uncomfortable reality.

The most consequential person is not the person whose behaviour is being questioned.

It may be the person they report to, the senior leader who knows what is happening or those entrusted with protecting the culture and preventing harm who choose not to act.

It is the leader who says, "They are too important to trouble with this." The senior figure who believes that "the ends justify the means." The decision-maker who concludes that bullying is tolerable when the target is seen as mediocre, undeserving or less valuable.

Every one of those moments says something about the system itself.

When organisations promote the problem

Behavioural concerns should inform decisions about trust, authority and responsibility.

Every organisation faces decisions about appointments, promotions and leadership roles. Those decisions shape culture and signal what the organisation values.

Patterns of behaviour deserve careful attention before additional power, influence or responsibility is given.

When organisations appoint, promote or protect people whose behaviour is already known to be a concern, they send a powerful message throughout the organisation.

Employees quickly learn whether behaviour forms part of the performance equation or is treated as a secondary consideration.

Why organisations miss it

One reason harmful behaviour survives is that senior leaders often experience a very different version of an individual than everyone else.

People who create difficulties are often skilled at managing upwards. Leaders see the polished version. Juniors, peers, HR, Legal, Risk and business services may experience something very different.

This creates a leadership experience gap.

Employees are experiencing one organisation. Leaders believe they are leading another.

There is also a tendency to overestimate formal controls. Policies, reporting options and HR procedures matter. But accountability is often shaped by relationships, status, influence and perceived organisational risk.

Have you ever heard of HR being the decision-maker on the future of a Senior Partner, a Managing Partner, a COO, a CEO, or other powerful executive? Me neither.

When organisations treat harmful behaviour as a risk to be run

In difficult cases, the crucial decisions happen early, before the facts have been established.

The stated question may be: Can we find out what happened? The unstated question can be: Are we willing to go where this might lead?

If the answer could involve disruption, censure, the loss of a productive individual, conflict with an aggressive power-player, regulatory notification or reputational exposure, there can be pressure to avoid the issue, soften the narrative or find a quick “commercial” off-ramp.

Once concerns arise, organisations face a choice between containing the issue or seeking to understand it. Containment is often attractive because it is faster, quieter and less disruptive. Understanding is harder. It requires organisations to ask uncomfortable questions about individuals, priorities, skills, controls and accountability.

One approach draws a line under the immediate problem. The other reduces the likelihood of it happening again. The difference is the difference between issue management and organisational learning.

Everyone is watching

Bullying is not always hidden.

Often it is on stage.

The behaviours affect more than the immediate target. People in the team observe who is protected. Who is believed. Who is blamed. Who is moved. Who leaves. Who gets promoted anyway. HR observe the same things. People talk to friends, family and contacts. They have their say online. They remember.

Your response is on stage too. That is how reputations are shaped.

The damage lasts longer than people think

I have seen talented people lose confidence, withdraw from opportunities, abandon career ambitions and leave organisations they once hoped to build careers in.

I have seen individuals carry the impact long after the specific incident was over.

I have also seen organisations pay a price.

Teams tread on eggshells. Trust deteriorates. High performers leave. Recruitment becomes harder. Reputations spread through professional networks long before they appear on employer review sites.

The costs are often invisible until they become impossible to ignore.

A better question

Every organisation contains ambitious people. Every organisation contains power dynamics. Every organisation contains individuals who will push the limits of what is acceptable.

The issue is whether organisational systems make harmful behaviour easier or harder to sustain.

The question is not: "Do we have a bullying problem?" Most leaders will answer no.

The better questions are:

• How quickly would we know if we did?

• Would people feel safe enough to tell us?

• Would we hear about it if the person involved was powerful?

• Would our systems recognise a pattern, rather than treating every incident in isolation?

• Would we address the organisational conditions that allow harmful behaviour to persist, rather than simply dealing with the person at the centre of the latest complaint?

Those are the kinds of questions behind the Slippery Slope® Map: Misconduct Edition.

Get ahead of the Slippery Slope®

Understanding why bullying survives is important. Doing something about it is more important.

The Slippery Slope® Map: Misconduct Edition is designed to help leaders, HR, Legal and People teams look beyond individual incidents and stress-test the conditions that allow harmful behaviour to emerge, persist and become normalised.

How bullying-friendly is your organisation? You can use the Map to find out and to start a conversation about where attention may be needed.

You can access it here for free.

Don't wait for an investigator, journalist, regretted leaver or regulator to tell you where the weaknesses are.

By then, the story has usually been unfolding for some time.

The earlier you recognise the pattern, the more options you have.