Unravelling organisational arenas: what maintains behaviour?

Those with influence – whether through position, charisma, or knowledge – largely determine what is considered ‘normal’ within the group. The resulting social dynamic is what we call the arena. The question is how such arenas are structured, how they affect behaviour within organisations, and why it is crucial for managers to understand these often invisible dynamics. Only by understanding how arenas operate, one can work effectively towards cultural change. We conclude with practical tools for reshaping existing arenas – a necessary step in breaking persistent, undesirable patterns within organisations.

When someone joins a team or department, a shift in identity occurs: the person moves from being an individual to becoming a group member. While individuals may make their own choices, this doesn’t work well when collective performance is required. For instance, if everyone sets their own working hours, manages their workload independently, and follows agreements to varying degrees, team outcomes will be poorer than when there is more alignment. Influential individuals play a critical role in this. An unequal distribution of influence is not inherently negative; it can actually support effective collaboration.

The role of informal leaders

Power may derive from formal positions. Line managers, department heads and executives generally hold more influence than employees. However, informal leaders also often emerge within teams or departments, playing a vital role in the social dynamics. In some cases, their influence surpasses that of formal leaders. Take, for example, an organisation introducing a new code of conduct. If informal leaders fail to see its value, compliance across the team will remain limited. Influence becomes particularly visible in how organisations deal with transgressive behaviour. For instance, when informal leaders impose themselves on female colleagues. The higher status of a informal leader makes it difficult for a new employee to report inappropriate behaviour.

Abuse of influence

Influence isn’t always exercised constructively. Certain individuals may receive privileges, while others are excluded. Sometimes questionable behaviour is overlooked or excused – particularly when those responsible are deemed indispensable to the organisation. Transgressive behaviour can go unpunished, especially if the perpetrators are closely connected to formal leaders. In such cases, maintaining those relationships may take precedence over addressing wrongdoing. Incidents of sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination are then left unchecked, often due to fear of reputational damage or backlash. This leads to normalisation: the behaviour becomes accepted. Victims – often occupying a lower position in the arena – fear that raising concerns will only make things worse, as the following examples illustrate.

Three real-life examples

1. Intimidation at Dutch television programme De Wereld Draait Door

The arena that played a role in the (physical) intimidation at De Wereld Draait Door (DWDD) (The World Turns to Bits) – including outbursts of rage, shouting, verbal abuse, humiliation, grabbing someone by the throat, pushing them to the ground – was dominated by the programme’s presenter, who held an informal leadership position within the DWDD organisation. Due to the show’s high ratings, his influence exceeded that of formal executives. Other key figures (such as senior editors) also used intimidation to signal what was and wasn’t acceptable within the tight production deadlines. Many staff members left the programme after a short time. This was considered normal. Thanks to the show’s popularity, vacancies were quickly filled. Those who stayed longer contributed to the culture that developed. The arena comprised a small group of influential individuals, led clearly by the presenter, and a large group of staff with flexible contracts occupying low-status positions. Formal executives (managers of the broadcasting company BNNVARA) wielded less influence than this core group. Despite being aware of the misconduct, formal leaders tolerated it as it became embedded over time.

2. Discrimination in the national Dutch Police Force

The documentary De Blauwe Familie (The Blue Family, referring to the former blue coloured uniform) by broadcasting company KRO-NCRV highlights discrimination and racism within the Dutch police. A survey of 32,000 police employees – officers, support staff, and managers – revealed that half of those with a migration background experienced racism at work. Due to a prevailing ‘code of silence’ in the police culture, this remained hidden for years. The documentary’s makers argue that this culture has existed for decades. One former officer of colour recounts being pulled from a car by colleagues during his first year at the Police Academy. A photo of him was taken and displayed at the academy with the caption, Meet our monkey in the cage.

This was not an isolated incident. Racist remarks and exclusion were common for Muslim officers and those of Surinamese or Caribbean heritage. The white majority of officers asserted dominance over others, often mocking and belittling them. Unlike the DWDD example, here discrimination was not limited to specific individuals. It was embedded in the culture of the entire organisation. The behaviour varied widely, forming a broad repertoire of actions. Because affected employees were in the minority, they struggled to resist. The majority’s power, coupled with the silence code, defined the arena. Although leadership introduced many measures, discrimination remained widespread. In the arena, the white majority held the dominant position. In matters of social conduct, managerial influence plays a secondary role. Minority groups were at the lowest ranking position.

3. Bullying at the Dutch Healthcare Authority

Workplace bullying is a common occurrence, most frequently within the public sector. This is often attributed to the strong legal position of civil servants. Dismissals are difficult, making bullying a route to push someone out.

A particularly severe case occurred at the Dutch Healthcare Authority (NZa), where a bullied civil servant ultimately died by suicide, sparking national outrage. A detailed investigation was conducted. In a lengthy appeal document written shortly before his death, the employee described his experiences, pointing to a series of successive managers. He cited the following behaviours:

• Exclusion from crucial meetings.
• Creation of high-risk scenarios likely to damage his reputation.
• Assignment of an excessively heavy workload.
• Obstruction of promotion or bonuses through deliberate underperformance ratings.
• Repeatedly ignored requests for feedback.
• Deliberate efforts to force his departure.

Earlier, the organisation underwent restructuring, and all staff were evaluated during what was termed a ‘Fleet Review’. During this review, managers formed a negative image of the employee. Using the HR3P method, he was assessed on ‘Potential’ and ‘Performance’ and categorised as a ‘Laggard’ – low on both dimensions. The prescribed action for such employees was ‘Clear out’.
The HR system included peer reviews, which were added to the personnel file and accessible to successive managers. This system of evaluation shaped a negative perception that was hard to escape. The simple, stigmatising labels – ‘Laggard’ and ‘Clear out’– pushed the employee to the lowest rank in the arena. Above him stood colleagues and, further still, layers of management. He was effectively ostracised by his work environment. The collective behaviour of managers constituted systematic bullying, aimed at his removal.

What this tells us about arenas

Misconduct can occur within a small group (a team or department), a larger organisational unit (such as a division), or across the entire organisation. It’s important to assess whether such behaviour is confined to a specific group – forming a subculture – or more widespread, amounting to an organisational culture.
Behavioural patterns can take root when influential individuals frame misconduct as normal, or when power is concentrated among those who choose to look away. In time, this leads to a culture where inappropriate behaviour is simply seen as “how things are done.” As the behaviour becomes more frequent, it forms a pattern and, depending on scale, a group or organisational culture.

The above examples demonstrate that victims of transgressive behaviour are always at a power disadvantage. That imbalance may rest with informal leaders, formal managers, a specific group, or a numerical majority. This power is then used to justify, normalise or conceal the misconduct. Repetitive and interlinked behaviours drive individuals into a low-status position within the arena. Arenas reinforce themselves. They create peer pressure to join in, or at least look away, when faced with intimidation, discrimination or bullying.

Disruption of the power balance

Arena constellations can persist for a long time, making them resistant to change. At heart, arenas are power balances. Shifts in the arena occur when that balance is disturbed – sometimes by small interventions. For example, a serious response to reports of sexual misconduct involving informal leaders could destabilise their influence. Investigating the most frequently named individual can weaken group cohesion and shift the balance of power.

Likewise, in cases of discrimination, formal leaders can hold informal ones accountable for their actions. This is especially effective when informal leaders are more influential than their formal counterparts. If consequences follow when norms are broken, the balance can tip in favour of management.

A shift can also occur with the arrival of new, strong-minded individuals. Something HR and leadership can actively consider during recruitment.
If change proves difficult, more forceful interventions may be needed: splitting up problematic units, reassigning key individuals, or even dismissals may be required to dismantle a toxic arena.