The Subtle Shape of Inappropriate Behaviour

Inappropriate behaviour in leadership or workplace contexts goes beyond obvious misconduct and often appears in subtle, systemic ways. It includes misuse of power (intimidation, silencing dissent, retaliation), harassment and discrimination (including microaggressions), boundary violations (expectations of constant availability, blurred professional lines), toxic communication (public shaming, gaslighting, dismissiveness), and ethical shortcuts that prioritise results over integrity. These behaviours are frequently excused as strong leadership, humour, or performance culture, which allows them to persist.

Power dynamics play a central role in shaping what becomes normalised or challenged. Those with greater authority are less likely to be questioned and more likely to define acceptable behaviour, turning personal conduct into organisational norms. The risks of speaking up are unevenly distributed: junior staff, contractors, and marginalised groups often face higher personal and professional costs, leading to silence that can be mistaken for consent. Repeated inaction normalises harm, socialising employees to accept "how things are." Power also determines whose experiences matter, with leaders' intentions prioritised over the impact on others.

Inappropriate behaviour is most effectively challenged when power is constrained through accountability, psychological safety, and credible reporting mechanisms. Ultimately, the issue is less about individual failings and more about systems that protect power and discourage challenge.

What It Cost Me  

I once experienced inappropriate behaviour from a manager who would throw stress balls at staff as a way of releasing frustration when arriving at work after difficult commutes (for example, cycling across London in bad weather). These incidents occurred while employees were working and were unpredictable.

When team members, including myself, expressed that this behaviour made them uncomfortable and asked for it to stop, the manager responded by filing HR complaints against those who raised concerns. Rather than conducting a fair or neutral investigation, HR accepted these complaints at face value and acted on them, creating further risk for staff who spoke up.

Recognising the broader impact on team safety and workplace culture, I escalated the issue to senior HR leadership to trigger a formal review and seek accountability. While this escalation ultimately led to scrutiny of the behaviour and greater protection for the wider team, it came at significant personal cost to me, including professional, emotional, and reputational consequences.

This experience highlights the misuse of managerial power, the failure of HR processes to protect employees who raise concerns in good faith, and the risks individuals face when challenging inappropriate behaviour within hierarchical systems.

The Language of Boundaries

Effective boundary-setting in the moment is calm, specific, and impact-focused. Use neutral language that names the behaviour and sets a limit without escalating emotion. For example: "Please don't throw objects at me. It's distracting and not appropriate while I'm working." Speak slowly, maintain steady tone and posture, and avoid justifying or over-explaining. If the behaviour continues, restate the boundary and introduce consequence or escalation: "I've asked for this to stop. If it continues, I'll need to raise it formally." Authority comes from clarity and consistency, not volume or defensiveness.

Knowing When to Escalate

Deciding how to respond depends on severity, pattern, and power dynamics. Is the behaviour a one-off or repeated? Does it pose safety, legal, or ethical risk? Low-level, isolated issues may be addressed privately if there is psychological safety and equal power. Repeated behaviour, retaliation, or misuse of authority should be documented and escalated. Involve HR when policies are breached or informal resolution fails; involve legal channels when there is risk of harm, discrimination, or bad-faith HR processes. Key factors include personal safety, likelihood of fair handling, organisational culture, and whether escalation protects not just you, but others.

What Protection Actually Looks Like

Leaders protect their teams and model psychological safety by acting early, visibly, and consistently when behaviour crosses boundaries. In the moment, this means naming the behaviour calmly and stopping it without shaming, for example: "Let's pause; throwing objects isn't appropriate here." Intervening in real time signals to the team that safety matters more than hierarchy or convenience. Leaders should also redirect the focus back to work, reducing emotional escalation while maintaining authority.

Bystander intervention is critical. Leaders can support individuals targeted by inappropriate behaviour by checking in privately, validating impact without minimising it, and asking what support they need. This avoids isolating the person affected and counters the silence that often enables harm. Leaders should also document incidents promptly and factually, focusing on observable behaviour and impact rather than intent.

Afterwards, psychological safety is reinforced through follow-through. This includes escalating concerns when patterns emerge, engaging HR or senior leadership where necessary, and ensuring processes are fair and free from retaliation. Leaders must be transparent about what they can and cannot share, while making it clear that issues raised will be taken seriously. Modelling accountability by inviting feedback, acknowledging mistakes, and correcting behaviour regardless of seniority sets cultural norms.

Finally, leaders build preventative safety by setting explicit expectations about conduct, normalising respectful challenge, and rewarding those who speak up. Psychological safety is not created by good intentions alone, but by repeated actions that demonstrate protection, consistency, and integrity over time.

Surviving Retaliation Without Losing Yourself

Retaliation, minimising, and gaslighting are best managed through clarity, evidence, and strategic support rather than reactive confrontation. Preserving credibility starts with anchoring responses in observable facts: document incidents promptly, quote exact language where possible, and separate behaviour from interpretation. This limits opportunities for others to reframe events as misunderstandings or overreactions. When minimisation occurs ("It wasn't a big deal"), calmly restate impact and boundaries without debating intent.

Well-being is protected by pacing engagement. Not every challenge needs to be fought in real time; choosing when to disengage, escalate, or seek advice is a leadership skill, not avoidance. Maintaining leadership presence means staying composed, consistent, and values-led, speaking with measured tone, avoiding defensiveness, and signalling confidence through follow-through rather than force. Private reflection, coaching, or legal guidance can help leaders avoid internalising distorted narratives.

Allyship is critical because retaliation thrives in isolation. Credible allies: peers, senior leaders, HR partners, or external advocates help validate reality, reduce risk, and rebalance power. Inviting allies to witness meetings, co-sign documentation, or raise concerns independently shifts issues from "personal conflict" to organisational risk. Effective allies intervene early, amplify concerns without taking over, and use their positional power to challenge behaviour that others cannot safely address.

Ultimately, managing these dynamics is about protecting both the individual and the system. Leaders who combine evidence, composure, boundaries, and allyship demonstrate authority grounded in integrity, making it harder for harmful behaviour to be dismissed, distorted, or repeated.

Building Cultures That Don't Look Away

Preventing the repetition of inappropriate behaviour requires systems that constrain power, norms that make expectations explicit, and cultural practices that reinforce accountability over time. At a systems level, organisations need clear behavioural standards tied to leadership roles, with consequences applied consistently regardless of seniority or performance. Reporting mechanisms must be accessible, confidential, and independent, with safeguards against retaliation and transparent investigation processes that prioritise fairness and evidence.

Norms are established through what leaders model and reward. Leaders should be trained to intervene in the moment, receive challenge without defensiveness, and treat feedback as part of their role, not a threat to authority. Regularly naming expected behaviours, such as respect, boundaries, and ethical decision-making, helps shift accountability from being reactive to preventative. Performance reviews and promotions should explicitly assess "how" results are achieved, not just outcomes.

Cultural practices embed these norms into daily work. This includes normalising documentation of incidents, encouraging bystander intervention, and creating forums where concerns can be raised safely and early. Psychological safety is strengthened when leaders openly acknowledge mistakes, correct behaviour, and demonstrate learning, signalling that accountability applies to everyone. External audits, culture surveys, or independent oversight can further reduce internal bias and power capture.

Ultimately, accountability becomes embedded when inappropriate behaviour carries predictable consequences, speaking up is protected and valued, and leadership credibility is defined by integrity rather than dominance. Culture changes not through statements of intent, but through repeated, visible actions that show power is exercised responsibly and checked collectively.

Dr Bijna Kotak Dasani, MBE, FRSA, has 25 years of experience in global financial services as a former investment banker turned entrepreneur, investor, and venture capitalist. She serves on multiple venture capital fund advisory boards globally and is interim Chief Investment Officer to a portfolio of VC funds in the GCC region with an AUM of nearly USD 3 billion. Dr Bijna also invests on behalf of her family office and advises ventures across sectors on diversification and expansion strategy. 

A Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and alumnus of the University of Oxford and De Montfort University, she holds venture capital certifications from UC Berkeley Law, Venture Forward, NVCA, and Newton. Dr Bijna has been featured in numerous publications and received multiple international recognitions, including Venture Capitalist of the Year, India (2025), Entrepreneur of the Year (2025, Finance & VC), and appointed MBE (2020) for services to business. She has also been recognised for her contributions to DE&I, leadership, and innovation globally, reflecting her commitment to advancing social and economic impact.