Enjoy this excerpt from one of our published books.
“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
– Albert Einstein
Now that we better understand lateral violence and how to establish a new social contract (the why and the what), we need to shift into understanding “the how.” To put a standardized code of behavioral expectations into action, you will need perspective (through perspective-taking).
Simply put, perspective-taking is the ability to understand how a situation looks and feels to another person. Perspective-taking is empathy creating, and empathy creates altruism (selfless concern for the wellbeing of others), whereas empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
The uniforms we all wear or the titles we hold come with various expectations of expertise, competency, consistency, and credibility. But those expectations also come with preconceived notions and stereotypes, and with stereotypes, we have varied attitudes, beliefs,perceptions, and biases.
In order to transcend the “isms” of racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, and heterosexism, we must use perspective-taking: the act of perceiving a situation or understanding a concept from an alternative point of view, such as that of another individual.
Why focus on bystander intervention and mobilizing the “bystanders?”
Many people think of a bystander as someone who is present at the scene of a potential incident. Part of the confusion is how the word “bystander” sounds; it sounds like it means someone who is standing by. It actuallyis use d to describe anyone who isn’t either a perpetrator or a victim in a given situation, but is in a position to intervene before, during, or after the act. Or a member of a peer culture that contains abusers or victims. Or an authority figure in a position to enact prevention strategies. In that sense virtually everyone is a bystander. The critical question is, are you an empowered/active bystander or an inactive/passive bystander?
- MVP Strategies, NSVRC “Engaged Bystander” Interview with Jackson Katz – Part One, April 29, 2011, by Joan Tabachnick
Studies show that bystanders are present in up to 85% of “potentially risky situations” in everything from bullying and verbal abuse to lateral violence, and all the way to explicit sexual harassment, workplace violence, and sexual violence. Regardless of statistics, people who could prevent the event or make the situation end “better” are present more often than not. Bystanders are the largest group of people involved in the cycle of violence and represent a greater portion of the population. They greatly outnumber the number of victims or perpetrators in any given situation, and research has shown that workplace “bullies” are as likely to push out bystanders and witnesses as those who are being directly victimized. (Sutton, 2007)
Professionals encounter many situations where bystander intervention would be appropriate, including, among other things, bullying, discrimination, depression, alcohol use/abuse, and various forms of assault. One researcher found that when staff were subjected to verbal abuse by a colleague, bystanders did not intervene despite being present nearly 100% of the time. (Henderson, 2003) This further isolated the target and, in their silence, condoned the behavior. In more than 370 hours of observation of nursing units, Henderson never witnessed any acts or attempts of bystander intervention, despite knowing the benefits of doing so.
When surveyed, most employees believe that these types of situations could be avoided with “some type” of intervention, and most people indicate that they would “like to intervene if they knew how.”
Concepts of bystander intervention and the need for ethical intervention are well understood in the realm of law enforcement, security professionals, campus crime prevention, and disturbance resolution specialists. They are less commonly understood by managers, supervisors, and organizational leaders outside of these practices.
It should be easy to “sell the need” for bystander intervention programs to people in positions of power, as people in positions of authority generally realize that they should act and that they have a professional responsibility to act (an explicit duty to intervene) because they are capable of acting (by having legitimate authority).
It is often more difficult to convince the average employee or citizen to intervene when they witness lateral violence and become aware of an inappropriate, wrongful, or potentially dangerous situation. There are many factors (above just assessing the nature of the behavior and whether it would be safe to intervene) that will determine whether or not a bystander will choose to step up and engage in the prevention of a potentially harmful situation.
Research has shown that arbitrary factors such as the potential victim’s attractiveness, or the sex of the person being wronged, will impact a bystander’s decision to act. Bystanders are often affected by their feelings towards the actor and the target, but their action (or inaction) should be based on the merits of the problem, not their relationship to the people involved.
More so, a bystander’s decision to intervene will hinge greatly upon two factors: whether or not they feel a
Let’s take a closer look at this. First of all, for the employee or citizen to feel a responsibility to act, we have to assume that they have a community-based belief system (a clearly understood social contract and strong personal value system) by which they live. Most people aren’t generally motivated to do something for someone else unless there is a specific benefit or reward for them. Think of the “What’s in it for me?” principle, also known as “WII FM… the radio station most people listen to.” They will often weigh the perceived costs of intervening against the perceived impact of what could happen if they don’t.
In the case of bystander intervention theory, very rarely is there a specific benefit for the person intervening other than for them to know that intervening is simply the “right thing to do.” Banking on the belief that most people will act because it is the right thing to do is misguided.
Research has shown that when several people are present and recognize that a person needs help, the less likely it is that they will intervene. Most of the time, people assume “it is someone else’s problem” or that “someone else will take care of it.” This misguided assumption is driven by the socio-psychological phenomenon known as the “diffusion of responsibility,” whereas people feel a decreased responsibility of action when others are present.
For many people, the problem in understanding bystander intervention strategies lies with the word “bystander” itself. “Bystander” literally means someone who is standing by, a witness to, but not participating in, and it is that understanding we are trying to move past.
Trying to mobilize people who are “standing by” is often a tough concept for people to wrap their heads around. For example, many people, regardless of their work context, witness social injustices such as racial slurs, promotional discrimination, defamation of character, or maybe even not-so-subtle forms of coercion. People who witness these things, and are aware of these behaviors, usually choose not to get involved by rationalizing that it has “nothing to do” with them and others appear unconcerned (the bystander effect).
It is easy to think of situations in which a person (who is neither the perpetrator nor the victim) observes an event and has the power to change the outcome for the better. However, bystander intervention strategies offer the tools needed for those observers to step in and positively alter the course of the outcome, both safely and effectively.
People also assume that since they are not engaging in the inappropriate behavior or are not the direct victim of the injustice, standing by seems like the safest and most neutral, non-polarizing option.
However, if you witness something going wrong, doing “nothing” is never a neutral option.
Quite frankly, doing nothing is making a choice in favor of the socially toxic behavior, further facilitating the creation of an environment that allows it. If you do nothing, nothing changes! Just because you don’t take sides in a situation doesn’t mean you have to remain neutral.
The error in this type of thinking is that when people witness negative actions, such as inappropriate water cooler talk, racist barriers to hiring and recruitment, or indignant treatment of subordinates, they are actually condoning the behavior they are witnessing. People often assume that ignoring the problem, or acting like they didn’t see it happen, will make it go away. The reality is that ignoring the behavior does not make it go away, and just like a wound left unattended, the behavior actually increases in frequency and severity because the actors were tacitly empowered to continue.
Not only will your inaction empower the actors to continue, but you will have become complicit. Complicity means allowing the behavior or violation to occur, whether by enabling it to happen or by failing to report it. Complicity clauses are often included in the general code of conduct and organizational people policies. They can support the social contract by reinforcing both the need and collective responsibility for taking action.
Additionally, the confusion surrounding bystander intervention goes beyond the word “bystander.” It also has to do with our understanding of the terms “victim” and “perpetrator.” When we use the nouns “victim” and “perpetrator,” we rigidly isolate and categorize people, events, and behaviors. These words are emotionally charged and come with a slew of subjective interpretations of what it means to “be a victim” or “be a perpetrator.” Most of the time, this type of thinking allows us to minimize, rationalize, and write ourselves out of the equation because we don’t categorize or label ourselves as fitting into one of those categories.
To approach this differently, we must stop using the terms as nouns and start understanding them as verbs. The term “victim” refers to only a small percentage of people; however, the number of those who have been “victimized” by the cycle of violence is much greater. For example, you may not have been a direct victim of sexual harassment, but you have likely been victimized by it if you have had to comfort and support a friend who was, or if your place of work was represented publicly as having multiple pending sexual harassment claims. Using that same line of thinking, I may not have been a direct victim of workplace bullying or harassment, but I have absolutely been indirectly victimized by it throughout the course of my career.
If we consider how the extended exposure to toxic workplace behaviors affect the lives of loved ones and
By collectively mobilizing, engaging, and becoming intolerant of unacceptable behavior (no matter how small), we can prevent the escalation to more harmful and dangerous behaviors. Inappropriate behavior (think: disrespectful language, actions, bullying, predatory behavior) cannot survive in an environment that won’t allow it. We need to create that environment in the workplace so that it’s an emotionally safe and supportive place for everyone.
There are many reasons why people choose not to intervene in a situation, and most of them start with assumptions. Here are a few of the more prominent ones:
First, people assume a situation isn’t a problem and fail to interpret the situation as needing help. Many people assume a situation isn’t a problem because many laterally violent behaviors and tactics seem ambiguous. By utilizing risk and threat assessment skills and learning to identify red flag risk indicators, we will be better equipped to identify a situation as one requiring help.
Second, people assume the situation is none of their business and fail to take personal responsibility. Even when bystanders do recognize a problem, most believe that it isn’t their problem. This is where empathy and perspective-taking come into play. Perspective-taking is empathy creating, which leads to altruism. Bystanders must ask themselves, “What would I want someone to do for me if I were in this situation?” Generally, the answer to that question provides the bystander with appropriate actions.
Third, people assume someone else will do something. This is the diffusion of responsibility, whereby each bystander’s sense of responsibility actually decreases as the number of potential witnesses increases. This simply means most people assume someone else will surely help because other people are there.
Fourth, people make the false assumption that other people aren’t bothered by the problem.
People are generally afraid to inquire if there is a problem for fear they may be the only one who feels that way, and they don’t want to risk the embarrassment if they are. However, statistics show that when one person steps up, intervenes, or inquires into an ambiguous situation, others often think and feel the same way. This is related to the spiral of silence: the fear of isolation or exclusion that consequently leads to people remaining silent instead of voicing their opinions. Most people are bothered by discriminatory remarks and harassment, but most people lack the communication and social skills necessary to appropriately address the behavior and alter the course of the outcome.
Finally, oftentimes people feel they don’t know how to safely intervene because they don’t have the proper skills to intervene.
By learning the skills taught in Vistelar’s Non-Escalation, De-Escalation, and Crisis Management training, such as the concepts of showtime mindset, proxemics, beyond active listening, the persuasion sequence, engagement phrases, redirections, and trigger guards, bystanders are better equipped to confidently defuse conflict through conversation.
Additionally, by improving your threat assessment skills, learning bystander intervention strategies, and using engagement phrases (short phrases you can use that are non-judgmental and non-escalatory if delivered correctly), you will have the skills needed to confidently identify problems, mobilize your peer groups, and be prepared to better protect yourselves and others. Learn the skills, and seek out opportunities to practice them to build confidence, competence, and the moral courage to intervene.
One goal of this book is for you to learn the strategies, methods, and tactics to intervene both directly and indirectly and in both emergency and non-emergency situations. This book is not meant to cover all possible scenarios or variables but rather to create a foundation of life skills you can use anywhere, at any time.
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.”
– Helen Keller, American author
Bystander intervention theory (Dividio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006) supports the following situational factors and psychological processes determining whether a person will be helped. (Latane & Darley, 1970) A breakdown at any one of these steps will result in no helping behavior.
In order to intervene or for bystanders to mobilize, people must:
The following sections will go into each of these steps in more detail and include actionable skill-building strategies for each step.
Step One: Noticing the Event
Even if you have never found yourself in a life-threatening situation requiring split-second decision-making, you can still prepare and practice for the worst by practicing “when/then thinking.” The concept of when/then thinking was developed by nationally known and respected law enforcement trainer “Coach” Bob Lindsey. When/ then thinking is the process of visualizing and thinking through what you would do in a given situation, even if it’s a situation you have never been in before.
In other words, when/then thinking is the skill of putting yourself into different types of scenarios so you can think through how you’d react to them before they happen. This is an important skill to have because it isn’t a matter of if something negative will happen; it’s a matter of when. This is related to the concept of perceived invulnerability. Perceived invulnerability is the (false) belief that since nothing bad has ever happened to you, nothing bad ever will. It is imperative to get past feeling “bulletproof ” and recognize that situations and different environmental variables can make you more susceptible and vulnerable to adverse outcomes.
At the most basic level, situational awareness means paying attention to your surroundings and being ready to act when you sense danger. In other words, situational awareness is the practice of when/ then thinking instead of if/then thinking.
If/then thinkers tend toward a rigid mindset of, “If something bad happens, then I will react.”
When/then thinkers tend toward an agile mindset of, “When I sense danger, then I will respond according to a pre-planned, practiced response.”
A pre-planned, practiced response includes these considerations:
For example: If you close your eyes right now, would you know how many people are in the room and would you have a sense of their temperament? If there was a recent firing of an employee, would you know about it? If an employee started acting “out-of-character,” would you take any action? If a stranger was in your building, would you notice? If they were carrying a backpack, purse, or satchel, would it arouse your suspicion?
Becoming a when/then thinker is the first step to improving your personal situational awareness. The next step is to gain a better understanding of your “personal level of awareness,” which is, in essence, your overall level of alertness.
This also includes your overall understanding of the inherent dangers and resources available to you within your environment. Think of this as your own personal protection radar system.
Understanding Personal Levels of Awareness
To better explain personal levels of awareness, we reference world-renowned tactical trainer Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Cooper’s “Color Code,” which has been used by law enforcement and military instructors for many years to describe “escalating degrees of preparedness” and alertness at any given time.
While the Color Code model was originally intended for potentially combative and deadly force shooting incidents, public safety officials have universally adapted it as a gauge for all types of situations you may encounter.
The first condition of awareness is known as “Condition White.” In Condition White, you are generally relaxed and, for the most part, unaware of what is going on around you and in your environment. Condition White is often referred to as a state of alertness equivalent to that of sleeping, meaning you are pretty much oblivious to everything happening around you.
Few of us intend to be in Condition White, but a lot of our behaviors can move us there. Being overtired, consuming drugs or alcohol, walking while texting, or walking with your headphones on are all things that can impact your ability to “take in” information from your senses that can give you an accurate assessment of how safe your environment is. Ideally, you should rarely, if ever, be in Condition White while at work.
The second condition of awareness is known as “Condition Yellow.” In Condition Yellow, you remain relaxed, but you are now aware of who and what is around you. Think relaxed but alert. This simply means you are now paying attention to all of the sights, smells, and sounds that surround you. It means you have changed your level of alertness to recognize the actions of people around you, and you have started to casually think about how they could impact you and how you’d respond if something happened.
For example, if you were in Condition Yellow, you would start keeping track of people who were walking behind you and notice if they started following you when you turned a corner or entered a building. You would start to notice the sound of their footsteps quickening if they were trying to catch up to you while also looking for a close public or private place that you could enter quickly to get closer to people and away from danger.
Some other examples of Condition Yellow thinking include scanning for exits when entering a new building or picking a seat in a theater or restaurant that would allow you to keep an eye on who may be entering the building. A great practical example of when/ then thinking and Condition Yellow awareness is being mindful of the time so you can drive home safely on a Friday or Saturday night and get home before “bar close,” which would increase the possibility of intoxicated drivers on the road.
The third condition of awareness is “Condition Orange.” Condition Orange means you have again escalated your level of alertness from just being aware to being ready to act. In Condition Orange, you will be able to identify something of interest to you that may or may not prove to be a threat to you.
Whatever that “something” is that you have identified as a possible threat, you will remain focused on it and investigate it further to determine if it is a danger or not. If you identify someone or something that looks out of place or just doesn’t “feel right,” you should shift from 360-degree awareness to a more focused awareness of that danger, which will help you ascertain the true nature of the situation.
In the example above, if you suddenly realized you were being followed, you would start scanning for an area with more light, more sound, and/or more people and make a plan to head that way immediately. If you ducked into a convenience store or headed into a more populated area, you could find safety amongst others and see if the person following you was truly a threat. If they weren’t, you lost nothing, but at least you put yourself into a better position if that person was a threat.
The fourth condition of awareness is “Condition Red.” If you are scanning in Condition Orange and become aware of something you have confirmed truly is a threat, you will move into Condition Red, which is also understood as the “action state.” In this state, you have specifically identified something you need to protect yourself against, and you will follow through with one of your mentally prepared when/then responses.
In the example above, you would have already changed your course from walking home and decided to stop inside the convenience store, but then you would go a step further and perhaps let the store clerk know that you believe you’re being followed and ask them to contact authorities.
There is a final condition of awareness referred to as “Condition Black.” Being the exact opposite of Condition White, Condition Black has often been referred to as the state of “blind panic.” This would mean that something was happening to you or someone approached you that presented such a threat to your life that your body would immediately kick into a “fight or flight” response. Both Condition White and Condition Black are responses of untrained people, and training will help you overcome some of the barriers associated with the fight or flight response.
Condition Black renders you incapable of rational thought, and without proper training or sufficient
One of the things to remember about the conditions of awareness is that they are fluid. You can move from one condition to another multiple times a day or throughout a specific incident. It is possible to go right from Condition White to Condition Black (which could have catastrophic implications). It is also possible to be in Condition Yellow and hear something warranting concern, such as a woman screaming, moving you to Condition Orange or Condition Red, only to find out that the woman wasn’t actually screaming out of fear; she was just shouting towards a friend who had forgotten something on the roof of his car and was driving away. This would move you back to Condition Yellow.
This is just one example of how you can move through the conditions of awareness and use the Color Code strategy to evaluate your level of alertness. Think of situations and examples of scenarios you have been in where this would have come in handy and perhaps helped the situation end differently.
Now that we have adopted the “scan and observe” mentality and understand the conditions of awareness, you also need to learn to trust your gut instincts. If something feels out of place or you feel like you could be in danger, you need to trust your gut. People often say they do not know what cues to look for.
We describe these cues as red flags, precipitating events, pre- incident indicators, or anomalies, which serve as risk indicators for things that could make you more vulnerable to certain behaviors. The better you are at identifying red flags, the better you will be at trusting your gut, identifying events requiring help or assistance, and avoiding potentially dangerous situations.
If you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, trust your intuition, do not enter a situation, and allow yourself to leave. Do not allow your sensory perceptions to get dulled by the day-to-day grind of work.
Establishing Baselines
Lateral violence doesn’t just happen out of the blue. The path toward violence is an evolutionary one with signposts along the way. This is known as “leakage.” When we review the entire sequence of events leading up to the last acts, we readily recognize a series of behaviors and events that lead down the path and set the stage for violence—those behaviors that offer clues into what was coming, such as conflict, broken relationships, antisocial behaviors, implied threats, social media postings, and explicit threats. We try to explain the spiral into violence as a simple cause-and-effect relationship, but it is not.
If someone had done something differently at a specific point in the timeline, the laterally violent outcome might never have happened. Hindsight is always 20/20 because it is easy to recognize the first acts of violence when we know how it ends.
In order to determine what behaviors are anomalies, we must first establish and understand the baseline. Your baseline behaviors are closely linked to the social contract in your organization.
You can establish and identify baselines of both environments and people.
For people, baseline behaviors are described as those that are typical to the person’s natural personality, such as shy, grumpy, outgoing, or happy. This also includes understanding their backgrounds, such as their cultural upbringing, social development, and history of trauma. It also includes considerations of mental and physical health, cognitive disabilities, psychiatric disorders, or chronic pain. Their baseline body language should also be considered, such as if they typically project an image of confidence (comfortable, dominant) or inferiority (uncomfortable, submissive).
Once you understand a person’s baseline, you can identify the anomaly behaviors.
An environmental baseline should mirror the environmental and behavioral expectations of the social contract. You need to identify the anchor points and habitual areas, the natural lines of movement, the proximal separation between groups that didn’t come together and the separation between people who did. Break down body language in each phase to identify the baseline patterns.
Patrick Van Horn, the co-author of the book Left of Bang, explains it this way:
How does the place feel? Is it busy, or laid back? Is it hostile, or calm? Are people moving with a purpose, or simply taking their time and strolling along? How are people’s emotions? Angry, calm, sad? These questions focus on atmospherics.
“How are people moving? Where are they coming from and where are they going? What paths are they taking? Do I see any proxemic pushes and pulls? From or toward what? These questions focus on proxemics.
Once you begin asking these simple questions, you can begin establishing patterns. Once you identify patterns, any deviation from the pattern is a potential anomaly.
Look at every single object as a fact—a park bench, a tree, a sidewalk, a light post, etc. Once you understand the geographical layout of your environment, you can start making assumptions. Assumptions are the expected human behaviors or environmental factors.
Once you have scanned the area and made a list of facts and assumptions about every person, that is your baseline. When a person is not acting according to your assumptions, you have identified your anomaly.
Behavioral anomalies can be viewed on a timeline leading up to an event. Once you know what they are, you can work to avoid or change them. The thought is that by recognizing red flags or a cluster of behaviors sooner (staying “left” of the event), we can prevent or change the course of the action or outcome.
When evaluating anomalies and red flags, we must consider the frequency, duration, and severity.
Evaluate whether:
Red flag risk indicators vary depending on the environment. Think about the situations and places you will most likely find yourself in, and then look for and identify anomalies.
No one particular anomaly means you are in danger, but the totality of several may. Think about it like this: no one or two red flags should be considered in isolation. You should be assessing the totality of indicators and looking for clusters of them.
This idea can be conceptualized with the initialism “ABCDE.”
Be Aware of the Baseline, look for the Change or Deviation in the baseline, and Engage (as appropriate or necessary).
Regardless of the type of incident, one of the things people often say after being victimized is “It just happened out of the blue!” However, that is almost never the case. In most cases, people outwardly “signal” their intentions well before it happens, we just don’t always see, or look for, the signs. This phenomenon is no doubt a function of denial, again, rooted in the belief that nothing bad will ever happen to me because nothing ever has - and the problem may be even worse in caretaker and first responder professions as a result of the erosion of our perception of personal space.
To operationalize this in a real-life example, consider this bare- bones description of an environmental baseline:
You work for ACME Company. The main entrance to your workplace has a large lobby. Inside the lobby, there is a clearly marked welcome desk staffed 24/7. People are often coming and going, but there is a “visible ID” policy in place, so more often than not, everyone in the space is wearing an ID clipped to their shirt. Guests can check in at the desk and easily acquire a guest ID badge. The employee at the welcome desk is also responsible for packages—they sign for and accept packages nearly every day and put them behind the desk.
One thing you notice about the space is that it is clutter-free. Despite the number of people coming and going, you rarely see garbage in the space, and there are never any loose packages left lying around the lobby. At this point, you can assume that the employees care about the space being clean, and they care about not losing deliveries.
If this description of the lobby is accurate, then this is the description of your environmental baseline in that space.
But then, one day, you come to work and notice a random box placed next to a wall. People are coming and going, but no one seems to be bothered by the random box.
The box, an unknown delivery, being unaccounted for and left in the lobby, would be considered an anomaly.
If then, over the course of the next few weeks, you see more boxes being left in the lobby unaccounted for, those anomalies now start becoming the new norm, or in these terms, the new baseline expectation for the space.
But something obviously had to happen for the baseline to change. So, what happened? Was the normal employee working the desk out sick, and someone failed to explain the package policy to the replacement? Did the regular employee stop following the policy? Did the regular employee just stop caring about the policy? Any or all of these options (and there are probably many other assumptions we could make) could be possible.
However, applying this concept is critical in knowing what behaviors to look for and what behaviors or actions may require a second look. Consider this application: you know a particular employee to be hardworking, upbeat, always looking out for others, consistently going above and beyond to deliver exceptional work quality. They are friendly and approachable. They enjoy hanging out with co-workers on breaks and after work. Their workspace is always impeccable. This behavioral pattern over time describes their baseline.
Suddenly you notice their behavior change. Their workspace becomes cluttered and disorganized. They start avoiding coworkers on breaks and after work. They start responding to others in a way that is snippy and short-fused. Their behavior has now deviated from their baseline and you have identified the anomaly behavior.
Pre-Incident Indicators and Triggers
As mentioned previously, incidents of workplace violence rarely occur in a vacuum. When reviewed after the fact, pre-incident indicators are almost always present. Some incidents are the culmination of multiple warning signals over a period of time.
Examples of pre-incident indicators are:
If you notice pre-incident indicators, document and report them. Take appropriate action according to your organization’s workplace violence policies and procedures. What actions are appropriate will vary greatly depending on your role in your particular workplace.
Beyond these indicators, there are also triggers that can set off a workplace violence incident, such as:
Certainly, overt threats —whether verbal or written—should always be taken seriously. If you are exposed to such behavior, document and report the behavior and take appropriate action according to your organization’s workplace violence policies and procedures.
Step Two: Interpreting the Event as Requiring Help (or Disruption)
Don’t fall into the trap of the bystander effect. Investigate the situation further, even if others appear unconcerned.
Ask others what they think about the situation (what was said or what you saw) and be visibly concerned. People do not speak up for peer discomfort for fear they may be in the minority. However, they are often part of the concerned (but silent) majority. Being visibly concerned will give others confidence in knowing they aren’t “the only one feeling that way.”
People may also resolve the “high cost for helping” versus the “low cost for not helping” dilemma by subconsciously reinterpreting the situation as one not requiring assistance. Remember, there are varying perceptions of what constitutes an emergency or non-emergency; what one person may consider an emergency, someone else may completely ignore.
To combat this, share your perspective; explain the behavior/ action/statement as you perceived it. Explain the impact you think those behaviors will have and suggest a solution. Oftentimes just setting the context and offering perspective (“perspective giving”) is enough to offset the high internal cost for helping/low cost for not helping dilemma.
This will be broken down further later in the book, but all situations can be categorized as being either a non-emergency (no concern for physical safety) or an emergency (concern for safety or imminent concern for life). In either case, appropriate action, or the appropriateness of action, will vary depending on your training, experience, and role within your organization.