Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong

“You always mess things up. Why are you even on this project? Just quit already.” Demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour like this is more common in the workplace and damaging than many people realize. One in three employees experience such behaviours, and almost half witness them.

Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, research shows bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment.

As our recent study shows, this is largely because when mistreatment seems inevitable or commonplace, bystanders are psychologically motivated to justify it rather than challenge it.

Why do bystanders rationalize mistreatment?

Humans are hardwired to see mistreatment as wrong. Most of us value fairness and want to punish wrongdoing. But if this is the case, why do bystanders so often fail to act when they witness mistreatment?

Our recent research explores this question drawing on system justification theory — the idea that people are motivated to see the systems they live and work in as fair, legitimate and stable.

When mistreatment seems inevitable — when people think “that’s just how things work around here” — bystanders face a psychological dilemma. They can either challenge the behaviour and risk conflict, exclusion or backlash, or they can rationalize it as normal or deserved.

Most people, often without realizing it, choose the latter. This mental shortcut allows them to preserve the comforting belief that the system is fair and people get what they deserve.

Witnessing workplace mistreatment

We interviewed 554 employees who had witnessed workplace mistreatment within the past two weeks at the time the survey was conducted. They shared their thoughts on how inevitable they believed the mistreatment incident was, and how tolerant they felt their organization was toward such behaviour.

In a follow-up survey, we asked these employees whether they felt the incident they witnessed was justifiable and the target as deserving. A week later, in a third survey, we asked these bystanders to report how they behaved toward the target, and whether they tried to address or minimize the incident.

We found that when bystanders perceived mistreatment as inevitable, they were more likely to see the incident as justified and targets as deserving of that treatment. These bystanders were more likely to socially distance themselves from the target, engage in negative gossip about them and were less willing to offer help.

Bystander inaction wasn’t due to cowardice or callousness, but was often a defence mechanism. Rationalizing mistreatment allowed bystanders to preserve the belief that their workplace was just. But this coping strategy can deepen harm for those who experience mistreatment, who may be further marginalized, isolated or discredited.

How mistreatment is normalized

Workplace climates play a key role in the normalization of mistreatment. Our findings indicate when employees believed their workplace tolerated mistreatment, they were more likely to rationalize it and less likely to support the person being mistreated.

In these contexts, mistreatment isn’t just ignored, but is quietly accepted. Tacit acceptance sends a powerful message: this is normal, this is deserved, this is not worth challenging.

What does a toxic, permissive workplace look like? Warning signs include staff who feel anxious about coming to work and leaders who publicly criticize employees or tell them to “toughen up” or “not take it personally.”

If negative gossip is tolerated, or reports of mistreatment are ignored or delayed, these are also strong indicators that mistreatment has been normalized.

Organizations may fail to acknowledge these patterns for a variety of reasons, including resistance, denial or a lack of readiness. But surfacing these issues is a strength, not a weakness. It allows organizations to address root causes, retain valuable employees, and foster a more respectful environment.

4 ways to create positive change

Even in workplaces where mistreatment has become normalized, positive change is possible. Research shows that effectively managing everyday incidents can create bottom-up effects that support broader positive change within the workplace, ultimately improving workplace climate.

Managers have a particularly pivotal role to play. When they respond quickly, support targets openly and hold perpetrators accountable, they challenge the perception that mistreatment is inevitable. They also send a broader message about what behaviours are and aren’t acceptable in the workplace.

Here are four evidence-based strategies that can help disrupt the bystander dynamic and improve workplace culture:

1. Challenge the narrative of inevitability

Organizations should clearly signal that mistreatment will not be tolerated in their workplace. This includes explicitly communicating behavioural expectations, investigating reports quickly and transparently, and ensuring senior leaders model respectful behaviour. These small but visible actions disrupt the sense that mistreatment is “just how things work.”

2. Reduce ambiguity

When organizations don’t define behavioural norms clearly, bystanders are more likely to rationalize mistreatment. Organizations should define what mistreatment includes, such as exclusion and sarcastic comments, and distinguish it from tough feedback or constructive conflict. Training can help employees recognize subtle forms of harm and reflect on how their reactions would appear to someone they respect.

3. Enforce consequences consistently

When policies exist but aren’t enforced, bystanders learn that mistreatment carries no cost. Organizations need to follow through on mistreatment policies, protect those who report it and make it clear that retaliation is unacceptable. Visibility matters: people need to see that action is taken.

4. Support targets openly and meaningfully

System justification often works by undermining the credibility of those being mistreated. Managers can counteract this by affirming the value of a person targeted, encouraging reintegration and monitoring their teams for subtle social exclusion. When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit because people tend to look to leader behaviour towards employees as a sign of their value to the group.

Why this matters

Much of the existing research on workplace mistreatment has focused on the importance of bystander and leader intervention. Our research adds a deeper layer by illustrating that bystanders may not intervene because they are subconsciously defending their belief in a fair and legitimate system.

This defence mechanism is especially dangerous when mistreatment is common, creating a cycle in which the most vulnerable employees are harmed twice: first by the perpetrator, and then by those who fail to stand by them.

Breaking this cycle requires more than training videos or one-off statements. It requires reshaping the climate that makes mistreatment seem normal, inevitable or trivial.

The encouraging news is that even small, consistent actions can begin to shift these dynamics. Research has shown that incivility training that teaches people how to engage in civil ways, for example, has lasting effects on employee well-being and relationships. When these harmful dynamics are shifted, it improves the workplace for everyone.

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Laurie J. Barclay receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Guelph's Research Leader Award.

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business's Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Sandy Hershcovis receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.