Why can’t companies change? The bystander effect

---

Inside a company we often come across situations, choices and habits that we consider wrong.

We have all taken part in barroom discussions where everyone complains and the solutions seem obvious. Often we know that we would be able to improve a process within our organization, that we could tackle a problem that has been forgotten for too long, that we could bring to light behaviors that are harmful to the company.

Why is it so hard to react and put ourselves on the line?

The bystander effect is a phenomenon studied in social psychology beginning with the experiments of John Darley and Bibb Latané (1968): it was observed that the likelihood that bystanders will react to an unexpected event (an accident) is inversely proportional to their number. Put simply: the more people witness the accident, the less likely it is that anyone will step in. A meta-analysis of more than forty years of research, with over 7,700 participants (Fischer and colleagues, 2011), confirms the effect, which is however weaker in situations perceived as dangerous.

There can be various causes; some of the most important are:

• Ambiguity: If we know there is an emergency (or even just a problem) but the request for help is not explicit, it is much easier for us to avoid noticing it. Think of the problems we see in our own organization: hardly anyone will ask us to step in if they do not directly concern our own work. How many opportunities are lost, and what does this ambiguity cost the company? Making problems explicit and involving everyone in solving them could lead to unexpected results.
• Belonging: Belonging to a group, and the group’s cohesion, increase the sense of responsibility. In an experiment by Levine and colleagues (2005), for example, an injured stranger was helped more often when he was wearing the shirt of the team the participants supported. Several studies (in particular Rutkowski, Gruder and Romer, 1983) have shown that more cohesive groups are able to act more promptly. Cohesion within the company (and not only within work groups) makes it possible to spot more quickly situations that could lead to problems, even when they are not strictly tied to one’s own work. The difference in reaction between cohesive groups and fragmented groups is amplified by the size of the group. In cohesive groups, the larger the group, the faster the reaction. In fragmented groups the opposite happens: as the number of people grows, the reaction diminishes (in quantity and quality).
• Diffusion of responsibility: We expect someone else to step in. It is very easy to stand aside, waiting for someone more competent or more involved to take charge of the situation.
• Understanding of the environment: Those who are less familiar with the environment tend to stand aside.

How can we reduce the effect of this phenomenon?

Companies have the opportunity to improve products, processes and service levels, achieve savings and find new markets. Making more efficient use of the creative and problem-solving capacity of all employees, and not just some, calls for attention to a few things:

• Make the problem explicit: the first thing to do in order to solve a problem is to recognize it.
• Assign problems: Name someone responsible for the solution as soon as we discover that the problem exists. This person will have to keep everyone informed of where things stand.
• Involve not just one specific team, but motivate everyone (by making the collective benefits clear).
• Try to increase cohesion not only within work groups, but between groups.
• Motivate employees to propose innovative ideas in any area, rewarding those who are eager to express their ideas and helping the more reluctant ones to come forward (or allowing them to speak up anonymously).

People have just as much to gain from a more active attitude and from greater involvement in everything the company does. They can help improve the work environment, build contacts with colleagues they do not deal with directly, raise their visibility in the organization (and their pay), and increase their self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy.

(Alberto Viotto)