As I deepen my research into organizational wrongdoing, I am increasingly struck by the subtle — and not-so-subtle — ways in which harmful, unethical, or even illegal behaviors can become normalized within otherwise "reputable" organizations.
I’m curious to hear from colleagues:
- What role do silence, complicity, or organizational identity play in these dynamics?
- How do we study wrongdoing without reducing it to individual “bad apples”?
Your insights — theoretical, empirical, or experiential — are deeply appreciated, especially as I explore the intersections of power, legitimacy, and silence in organizational life.
Wrongdoing can persist due to several mechanisms, cultures, or structures, such as:
These structures or cultures can create environments where unethical practices continue unchecked.
The metaphor of “a few bad apples” is often used to explain how the perpetrators of the "wrongdoing" are an exception and should not count. Following this logic, it could be argued that a few bad apples can spoil the whole batch. In response, one might choose to do nothing (since it’s just a few bad apples), remove the bad apples (or their rotten parts) and leave the rest, or discard the entire batch.
I also agree with Chuck A Arize, particularly regarding what he refers to as Groupthink. Collective opinions often discourage the critical examination of group dynamics. Additionally, wrongdoings are not universal; what might be acceptable in one context may be inappropriate in another. This could apply, not only to different groups or cultures, but also means that within a team, a minority may feel that certain dynamics are harmful, yet be or feel powerless to change them.
In those cases, both complicity and organizational identity play a fundamental part. I'm genuenly clueless on how to cientifically do research on how silence lets "wrongdoings" reproduce.
PS: By “minority,” I don’t mean a smaller percentage of people, but rather those with less decision-making power.
The organization may prioritize forgiveness, second chances, and understanding over enforcing strict accountability. Compassion is overemphasized at the expense of justice and accountability. Wrongdoers exploit this leniency, knowing that consequences will be light or nonexistent.
Normalization of wrongdoing often occurs gradually, as unethical or illegal actions are embedded into routines, decision-making processes, and cultural norms. Over time, behaviors that once seemed unacceptable become viewed as standard operating procedures, especially if they are subtly reinforced or overlooked by leadership.
Leadership plays a critical role in preventing the normalization of wrongdoing. When those in positions of authority subtly reinforce or overlook unethical behaviors, they create a culture of impunity that can have far-reaching consequences.
Leaders must be held to the highest standards of accountability and integrity, and they must be willing to take a stand against wrongdoing, even when it is unpopular or difficult: The prince is the servant of the law, and not the law the servant of the prince.
The prevention of the normalization of wrongdoing requires a collective effort from all members of society. We must be willing to speak out against injustice, to challenge our leaders, and to hold ourselves and others to the highest standards of integrity and morality. Only through such concerted efforts Lily Mergaliyeva can we create a society that is just, compassionate, and righteous, and in which the gradual normalization of wrongdoing is not allowed to take hold.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture