Which cultures are vulnerable to transgressive behaviour?

In recent years, in the Netherlands painful scandals have come to light across various sectors, such as the media, the sports industrie, politics and universities, concerning transgressive behaviour. Cases as the television programme DWDD, Ajax, the Dutch Parliament, the broadcasting company NPO, Utrecht University and theatre company ITA clearly show how deeply organisational culture can influence such behaviour.

Organisational cultures can provide fertile ground for the emergence and persistence of misconduct. Over time, certain norms and values may develop within organisations that enable, downplay or even normalise such behaviour. Leaders – whether formal or informal – play a key role: they either set a poor example or tolerate the behaviour in others. As a result, correction is lacking, and transgressive conduct becomes entrenched as ‘normal’. It becomes part of ‘how we do things around here’ and an embedded element of the organisational culture. This can manifest as a broadly shared culture across the organisation, or as specific subcultures within teams or departments. Below, we outline the cultural characteristics that carry a higher risk:

1. High power distance and dependence

In cultures where there is a large power distance and strong dependence between managers and employees, the environment makes it difficult to address abuse of power. Employees, especially temporary workers, may rely on their managers for job security or future opportunities, which makes reporting misconduct more difficult. Many feel unsafe speaking out for fear of retaliation. This is not limited to formal hierarchies; informal power structures can also create risk. For example, at DWDD, staff did not dare raise concerns about the presenter’s behaviour due to his informal power and status as a popular TV figure. This also deterred senior leaders from intervening.

2. Strongly competitive and performance-oriented

Organisations that prioritise performance and internal competition also pose risks. In such environments, success is often rewarded with status and influence, meaning results become more important than ethical behaviour. This dynamic can turn colleagues into rivals, which may foster bullying or intimidation. To achieve targets, abuse of power might be tolerated or even admired as a tough but effective management style. There is often reluctance to address the behaviour of commercially successful employees or leaders who behave inappropriately – precisely because they are successful. An example of this is seen in the theatre world at ITA, where commercial success took precedence over addressing misconduct by prominent creatives.

3. Internally focused and closed

In closed cultures that prioritise group cohesion and mutual loyalty, an ‘old boys’ network’ mentality often prevails. This can be seen in family businesses, academic institutions, and sports teams. Group interests tend to outweigh individual wellbeing, and newcomers are expected to conform to existing norms. Dissent is discouraged. Speaking out against inappropriate behaviour is difficult in such cultures, as the group seeks to protect the reputation for integrity of the team, organisation, or profession. Conflict is therefore avoided. For example, a PhD student who raises concerns about a professor may jeopardise their academic career if other professor’s close ranks to protect their colleague’s reputation.

4. Weak cultures

This refers to organisations where there is little sense of shared norms. Teams are often temporary, autonomous and operate with considerable freedom but also with little clarity around acceptable behaviour. Oversight mechanisms are absent or poorly developed. Such weakly defined cultures are commonly found in project teams and startups. The combination of lack of shared behavioural standards and internal checks, can allow harmful behaviour to go unnoticed and escalate. 

5. Strong service mentality: ‘Customer is King’

In service-oriented sectors like hospitality, retail, and healthcare, staff often encounter inappropriate behaviour from clients or patients. In organisations with a customer-centric culture, the emphasis on service can lead to the toleration or downplaying of abusive behaviour from customers. Employees may be encouraged to put up with such conduct, while internal complaints are ignored.

6. Macho culture

In production environments and institutions such as fire and police services, a ‘tough mentality’ is often the norm, with little room for sensitivity. “Don’t be a wimp” is the prevailing attitude, and anyone showing vulnerability may be punished. This can foster a work environment in which bullying, intimidation or other forms of misconduct become part of the culture. The term ‘macho culture’ might suggest male dominance, but both men and women can contribute to and sustain such an environment.

Awareness of culture and subculture

To tackle transgressive behaviour, a clear understanding of the organisation’s culture is essential. Organisations that recognise themselves in one or more of these cultural traits have work to do, especially if multiple risk factors are present at once. For instance, a culture that is both hierarchical, competitive, and internally focused.

Real change begins with acknowledging that certain cultural traits can be risk factors for misconduct. This requires knowing how the organisation really operates – not just how one thinks or hopes it does. It also means recognising that specific teams or departments may develop their own subcultures that normalise misconduct. These are the first steps towards a safer working environment. Only with these insights can a culture be created where misconduct has no place.