Understanding the barriers to speaking up: bystander conversations at the ICRC

For too long, sexual misconduct by staff of humanitarian organisations has been an open secret’, remaining invisible, tolerated or ignored. Revelations in February 2018 of abuse across the humanitarian sector provided another wake-up call and have put the prevention of and response to sexual misconduct more prominently on our agendas once again. Collectively, progress has been made in acknowledging the significant risks of sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH) during humanitarian responses, and the link with the intrinsic power imbalance between affected communities and humanitarian workers, or among staff members.

Like many other organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has enhanced institutional efforts to protect members of affected communities and staff from SEAH. No matter whether sexual misconduct is against another staff member or against a recipient of assistance or protection activities or another member of the communities we work with, both dimensions need to be addressed comprehensively and together, as they represent ’expressions of, and contributors to structural power inequalities that render the targeted persons less able, if at all, than perpetrators to control the sexual engagement’.

This article focuses on our efforts to address the internal dimension of sexual misconduct, i.e. among ICRC staff. These efforts are based on the understanding that the way we interact and respond to each other internally is intrinsically linked to how we can protect from harm those we serve and work with externally.

Our efforts in preventing sexual misconduct aim at contributing to an organisational culture of integrity that ensures that everyone working with us feels safe and respected. This requires that managers and staff alike understand and are equipped with the skills they need to fulfill their roles and responsibilities with respect to fostering such a culture.

In the following, we share the example of bystander conversations on SEAH, an initiative developed by the Ethics, Risk and Compliance Office and implemented with the active involvement of staff from different contexts ICRC is working in. The initiative, which complements other prevention and awareness-raising activities, provides space for staff to analyze and understand the phenomenon of SEAH and explore what it means to be an ‘active bystander’. The methodology of bystander intervention training is based on the social norms approach. It aims to empower and encourage individuals who are not directly involved to identify, speak up or engage others when observing or hearing about problematic or inappropriate behaviour. See, for example, A. D. Berkowitz, A Grassroots’ Guide to Fostering Healthy Norms to Reduce Violence in our Communities: Social Norms Toolkit.New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault (2013) and R.A. Fenton, H.L. Mott and P.N.S. Rumney, The Intervention Initiative: Theoretical Rationale. University of the West of England (2015).

Bystander conversations on SEAH

Our bystander conversations aimed at creating awareness about everyone’s responsibility towards a culture of integrity and at instilling confidence to speak up and raise concerns.

For the conversations, groups were organised in country offices and in one department at headquarters. Most conversations took place face-to-face, though some used a virtual or hybrid format due to restrictions linked to the pandemic. Discussion groups were implemented in close collaboration with staff familiar with the context. Whenever possible, a member of staff known to and respected by the participants helped with preparation and acted as co-moderator.

Staff were invited to discuss different scenarios of incidents of SEAH, informed by behaviours identified in ICRC investigations, L. Kelly, Stepping up to the challenge: Towards international standards on training to end sexual harassment (New York: UN Women, 2020). and were asked to take the perspective of the individuals affected, and the colleagues observing the incidents. This triggered reflection on how they would feel, what actions they could take and what barriers might prevent victims/survivors from speaking up, and observers from intervening. 

A range of staff (permanent, daily workers, international/national) were invited to participate. We organised the initial sessions by grouping staff according to gender and role (e.g. cleaning staff, drivers). In contexts where strict security rules apply for international staff, separate discussion groups were held to address specific risks (e.g. sharing a house with colleagues, living in a compound).

Observations

So far, bystander conversations have taken place in DRC, Mali, South Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Switzerland and the US. Initial concerns that it might be difficult to discuss the prevention of SEAH (PSEAH) in some of these contexts proved unwarranted. The bystander discussions showed us that these conversations can be held anywhere, including where gender stereotypes and rigid gender roles are widespread.

The discussions provided us with detailed insights into barriers for staff to speak up, both when affected by and observing inappropriate behavior. While we would have expected differences in the types of issues and barriers raised in different contexts, the content of the discussions was surprisingly similar. While certain forms of SEAH may be excused or normalised with reference to cultural norms, the roots causes are the same: gender inequality and other power imbalances between different social groups.

Barriers include a lack of understanding of existing procedures, limited access to reporting (due to language barriers, computer illiteracy or limited IT connections) and a feeling that it is culturally unacceptable to speak up.

The most frequently mentioned barrier to speaking up was the fear of negative consequences, socially and professionally. Participants listed social exclusion, gossip and being seen as a troublemaker, as well as contracts being terminated. These negative consequences clearly related to the risk of victim-blaming, aggravated by existing gender inequalities and power imbalances.

Victim-blaming is about reversing responsibility, claiming that victims/survivors provoked the behavior through their attitudes or clothing, or endorsed it by not explicitly contesting it. Whether it takes explicit or more indirect forms, victim-blaming contributes to normalising or excusing sexual violence. Referred to as ‘rape culture’ in the academic literature. See for example UN Women, ‘16 ways you can stand against rape culture’, 18 November 2019 (https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2019/11/compilation-ways-you-can-stand-against-rape-culture). For the bystander conversations, it was important to address statements of victim blaming right away during the session. An effective way of doing this was to have them discussed and countered by other participants. Addressing the fear of negative consequences – in particular in environments where victim-blaming remarks are tolerated is complex. This is partly because some of these consequences are hard to detect or prove (e.g. negative consequences on career advancement), or they are outside the organisation’s control (e.g. stigmatisation by families or community). Whether fear will stop someone from speaking up is closely related to the level of confidence and trust that person has, at the individual and institutional level (‘Am I misinterpreting the behaviour? Will they believe me? Will my manager take this seriously? Will the organisation follow up?’). While the fear of negative consequences demonstrates the obvious need for strict confidentiality and victim/survivor-centered approaches during follow-up, the confidential and individualised nature of the process itself can, paradoxically, complicate trust-building within a wider audience – beyond those involved in a specific case – as most staff are not necessarily aware of good practice for handling cases.

Addressing these barriers will require continued action at various levels. Having a formal protection mechanism against retaliation, a strict confidentiality requirement and a victim/survivor-centred approach embedded in policies and guidelines is an important first step. Colleagues also need to trust that the organisation is serious about protection from and prevention of SEAH, and that staff will be regarded positively for speaking up, rather than labeled as ‘troublemakers’. For trust to grow in this sense, there must be awareness-raising around the mechanisms and unequivocal messaging by leaders and managers that reporting of SEAH is necessary and welcome, and that other inappropriate, sexist attitudes will not be tolerated. Moreover, staff must be assured that the organisation’s response to SEAH will be guided by a victim/survivor-centred approach, meaning that there will be a case-by-case assessment of the risks to and needs of victims/survivors. Sharing detailed, anonymised practices on how reports and investigations linked to SEAH are conducted has helped build confidence that SEAH concerns will be followed up in a way that is genuinely victim/survivor-centred.

Tackling victim-blaming attitudes and related concerns requires clarity around the notion of ‘active consent’, and work to raise awareness of how power differentials silence some individuals and make it difficult for them to actively contest behaviour. Separate discussion groups according to gender have been helpful and will remain essential. These conversations must be shaped and owned at the local levelto allow deconstructing victim-blaming or passive attitudes amongst peers.

Takeaways for impactful bystander conversations

The following elements were identified as being are key to organize impactful bystander conversations.

First, the need to integrate a gender lens in the discussions, amongst others, to create awareness about underlying root causes such as power imbalance and structural inequalities. This can be challenging given different levels of gender awareness in the group and the fact that the sessions are quite short, lasting for one and a half to two hours only. The moderator must strike the right balance between giving the space for participants to express disagreement and ensuring that the discussion retains a firm focus on the gendered root causes and barriers to speaking up. If this balance gets lost, a discussion group can quickly slip into a victim-blaming session, doing more harm than good.

Second, following a ‘values-based approach’, L. Kelly, Stepping up to the challenge. the sessions should go beyond explaining rules, and stimulate reflection around the active role each person can play as a ‘bystander’. Instead of analysing whether a specific situation amounts to a violation of ICRC’s Code of Conduct, we focused on how bystanders can positively intervene, and the barriers that could stop them from acting. Case scenarios using context-adapted examples and language have proved key to fostering discussion.

The involvement of local, respected co-moderators was crucial in enabling impactful discussions, and the local ownership of centralised and/or HQ-driven prevention initiatives. Having one moderator from the Ethics office and one co-moderator from the context allowed passing PSEAH messages that encompassed the tone at top the institutional commitments and processes in place while also addressing the context specific PSEAH challenges. The choice of who would act as co-moderator was left to the office and was made based on the co-moderators’ interest and personality (their readiness to promote PSEAH in front of their peers) rather than their official function. A preparation session, including a short gender capacity-building induction, was organised with all co-moderators.

Successful implementation requires the management of the country office supporting the initiative and encouraging all staff to participate. If possible, organizing in-person sessions facilitates the conversation, and helps staff open up. Separate discussion groups according to gender (including the moderators) have been – in our experience – crucial to create a safe space for participants to express themselves. They also minimised the risk of victim-blaming statements being addressed directly to victims/survivors. However, we do recognise the limits of this approach, and, if not framed well, the risk of confirming stereotypes about sexual violence.

Building on these experiences, and taking into consideration external literature See, for example, P. Sen, What will it take? Promoting cultural change to end sexual harassment (New York: UN Women, 2019), pp. 41;A. D. Berkowitz, A Grassroots’ Guide to Fostering Healthy Norms to Reduce Violence in our Communities: Social Norms Toolkit (New Jersey: 2013, New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault); R.A. Fenton, H.L. Mott and P.N.S. Rumney, The Intervention Initiative: Theoretical Rationale (Bristol: 2015, University of the West of England). and materials, we are currently developing bystander intervention training. R.A. Fenton, H.L. Mott and P.N.S. Rumney, The Intervention Initiative: Theoretical Rationale (Bristol: 2015, University of the West of England). These modules will be rolled out through a network of integrity advisors and trainers in offices and departments at headquarters. In the future we hope to connect initiatives to public debates around sexual violence in civil society and the media in specific contexts. We will also explore options to extend the conversation to mixed discussion groups. The more contextualised the content of the discussions, the greater the likelihood that participants will truly identify with the scenarios and apply the skills they have learned when confronted with problematic situations.

Prevention work at different levels

Another takeaway from the bystander discussions is the need to embed these conversations in a more comprehensive prevention strategy backed by senior leadership. Opening the conversation at a local level is impactful and necessary, but needs to go hand in hand with strong centralised direction, demonstrating ‘institutional courage’ through effective implementation of policies and procedures (such as putting in place an independent complaint mechanism) and by effective action in practice (for example, by promoting staff and managers who have been proactive in addressing sexist attitudes among their team members).

Exclusively focusing at a local level may create initial interest, but this can quickly turn to disappointment if staff perceive change is not taking place at higher levels in the institution. Conversely, focusing entirely at a senior level would feed perceptions that PSEAH is another buzzword driven by donors, and would not respect the victim/survivor-centred approach we are committed to.

Prevention work must constantly address these different levels to drive progress on PSEAH within the organisation. This means that we continuously try to identify, at all levels, both allies and critics, and to look beyond organigrams and job titles to understand how to influence and find connections with operational work. We also are mindful of the different risk factors to address such as the opportunity that exists in some places more than others because of the set up and/or nature of the activities; or the situations of vulnerability that can change in a given space and time.

Outlook

All individual complaints reported to the ICRC Ethics, Risk and Compliance Office are followed up in a consistent manner. Going forward, we need all staff to recognise that PSEAH goes beyond individual case management and requires an organisational culture of integrity, where all forms of inappropriate behavior are no longer tolerated, and are addressed. Successful PSEAH is achieved when the collective element is fully embraced, and everyone working with us considers SEAH as problematic behaviour that affects us all. The bystander sessions are an important tool for us to foster collective ownership of ICRC’s culture of integrity, and with it the collective commitment to prevent SEAH.

Heike Niebergall-Lackner is Chief Ethics, Risk and Compliance Officer at ICRC.

Paulien Vandendriessche is Advisor on Prevention of Sexual Misconduct at ICRC.