What factors contribute to harassment in the workplace?

Workplace harassment rarely appears out of nowhere. It is more often the predictable outcome of conditions that allow disrespect to grow quietly, especially when a company’s structures, norms, and incentives do not protect people consistently. While individual choices still matter, the workplace environment determines whether harmful behaviour is corrected early or whether it becomes part of everyday life. To understand why harassment happens, it helps to look beyond isolated incidents and examine the factors that make harassment easier to commit, harder to report, and more likely to repeat.

One of the strongest contributors is an imbalance of power without clear safeguards. Every organisation has hierarchies, but harassment becomes more likely when one person holds excessive control over another person’s career outcomes. When a manager can influence performance ratings, promotion decisions, schedules, pay, and access to key projects, employees may feel pressured to tolerate inappropriate behaviour because the personal cost of speaking up seems too high. This risk increases when influential individuals are treated as untouchable, such as top performers, long-serving leaders, or senior figures closely tied to a company’s identity. When people believe that power protects misbehaviour, silence can feel like the only safe option.

Another factor is role ambiguity and unclear boundaries. Harassment can thrive in workplaces where expectations are not well defined, where communication norms are inconsistent, and where professionalism is treated as optional rather than foundational. When lines are blurry, interactions can shift from work-focused to personal, and it becomes harder for employees to name what feels wrong. Informal cultures can be healthy, but they can also create cover for boundary violations when “jokes,” teasing, or late-night messages are framed as normal team dynamics. In these settings, employees often second-guess themselves, which delays early intervention and allows patterns to strengthen.

Workplace culture also plays a central role, particularly when outcomes are rewarded more than behaviour. Many organisations claim to value respect, yet they signal their true priorities through who gets promoted, who gets protected, and who is excused. When results become a shield, harmful conduct is rationalised as intensity, leadership, or high standards. The message to the team is subtle but powerful: performance buys immunity. Over time, the workplace becomes inconsistent in how it treats harm. Some people are corrected immediately for minor mistakes, while others are forgiven for major violations. That inconsistency weakens trust and makes it harder for employees to believe reporting will lead to fair consequences.

Stress and chronic overload can further increase risk. High pressure does not cause harassment, but it can amplify existing weaknesses in a company’s culture and leadership. When teams are constantly stretched, patience and empathy often disappear first. Leaders may become reactive, and employees may treat conflict as a distraction rather than a signal. In unstable environments, some individuals try to regain control through intimidation, humiliation, or domination. When a company is growing rapidly, this risk can intensify because processes and manager capability often lag behind headcount. A business may scale faster than its ability to supervise fairly, respond to complaints effectively, and train leaders to manage with care.

Weak reporting systems are another major contributor. Many workplaces have policies, but employees judge a reporting system by what happens after someone tries to use it. If reporting triggers gossip, retaliation, delays, or unclear outcomes, the policy becomes decorative rather than protective. Employees will stay silent if they believe complaints will be ignored or mishandled. The risk is higher when HR lacks independence, when investigations are inconsistent, or when leaders respond defensively to protect the organisation’s image. Even well-meaning processes can fail if they are slow, opaque, or emotionally isolating for the person reporting harm. When reporting feels unsafe, harassment becomes easier to continue because the system that should interrupt it does not function as a real deterrent.

Retaliation is closely tied to this, and it often works quietly. Retaliation is not always a dramatic punishment. It can look like exclusion from meetings, reduced responsibilities, stalled progression, hostile performance reviews, or subtle social coldness that pushes someone out over time. Even the perception of retaliation matters. If employees think speaking up will harm their reputation or career, they will avoid reporting, and harassment is more likely to persist. Silence becomes an unspoken signal that the behaviour is tolerated, which encourages repeat patterns.

Bystander behaviour and social norms also contribute. Harassment rarely occurs in a vacuum. Other people often witness it directly, sense it through repeated complaints, or notice the discomfort it causes. When coworkers laugh awkwardly, change the subject, or advise someone to ignore it, they may unintentionally reinforce the behaviour. Many bystanders stay quiet because they fear conflict, fear being wrong, or worry about damaging their own standing. In workplaces where hierarchy is strong, people may also feel that challenging a senior person is disrespectful. Over time, a culture of avoidance forms. The organisation begins to normalise harm, not because everyone agrees with it, but because few people believe they can safely interrupt it.

Hiring and promotion practices can also create vulnerability. When leadership roles are filled primarily based on confidence, charisma, or results under pressure, organisations may overlook traits that matter for safety, such as emotional regulation, empathy, humility, and the ability to handle power responsibly. Some companies promote technical talent into management without training, assuming competence will translate into people leadership. Without proper support, managers may use control-based tactics, mishandle conflict, or blur boundaries, especially when under stress. A workplace that does not develop managers intentionally is effectively leaving employee safety to chance.

Remote and hybrid work can introduce additional risk pathways. Harassment can move into private channels, personal messages, or one-on-one calls with fewer witnesses. At the same time, isolation can reduce informal support, making it harder for employees to validate what happened and decide how to respond. When people work apart, uncertainty can linger longer. They may wonder if they are overreacting, or worry that they misunderstood tone, which delays action and gives harmful behaviour more room to continue.

Finally, bias and exclusion can magnify all these factors. Harassment often targets people who are perceived as outsiders, less protected, or less credible. When certain groups are not taken seriously, or are treated as replaceable, the workplace becomes uneven in who receives care and credibility. Even if a policy looks neutral on paper, enforcement can be shaped by informal preferences, stereotypes, and power dynamics. In those environments, harassment is more likely to take hold because the organisation’s response is inconsistent and selective.

Ultimately, workplace harassment is not just an individual failing. It is often a systems problem that reveals gaps in accountability, leadership, culture, and reporting safety. When power is unchecked, boundaries are unclear, behaviour is tolerated for the sake of results, and reporting feels risky, harassment becomes easier to commit and harder to stop. But when organisations build clear expectations, enforce standards consistently, train leaders well, and protect people who speak up, harassment becomes far less likely to thrive. The difference is not luck. The difference is design.