How can you intervene as a witness to inappropriate behaviour without putting yourself in a difficult position? That question lies at the heart of a new bystander training course now available at UAntwerp. This initiative has come about for a reason. Lien Smets, training officer from HR (DP&O), explains why the training is particularly important right now.
Why was this training introduced?
‘Not only recent events, but also research continues to show that inappropriate behaviour is widespread and can have a huge impact – not just on the victim, but also on the atmosphere in the workplace,’ Smets explains. ‘In hierarchical institutions like universities, the risks are even greater. Data from our own 2018 well-being survey confirmed we had to take action.’
The bystander training is part of a broader initiative. Several departments – the Diversity & Inclusion Team, Human Resources, the Health and Safety Department and the Antwerp Doctoral School – have all joined forces. Their goal? To create a safer work environment by giving staff the tools to recognise inappropriate behaviour and respond to it appropriately.
Lien Smets explains the response strategies. Kristine (ADS) and Lien in action.
What do you learn in the training?
The focus is on prevention. ‘We want to prevent inappropriate behaviour from becoming normalised or escalating. Such behaviour is even more painful and impactful when bystanders don’t respond. And this creates a false sense of consensus,’ says Smets. ‘With this training, we aim to make staff aware of their role as bystanders and equip them with practical tools to take action.’
Smets adds: ‘Inappropriate behaviour isn’t always something spectacular. It’s often about micro-aggressions or exclusion, for example someone consistently left out of lunch invitations or repeatedly ignored during meetings. One mosquito bite isn’t bad, but a swarm is unbearable.’
Group discussions during the trainingDifferent point of views during the training
A practical, hands-on approach
The training session is interactive and built around real-life cases involving inappropriate behaviour among staff members. Various situations are discussed in small groups, with room to exchange perspectives. The training session also deals with the barriers that prevent people from stepping in, like fear of standing out, shyness, group pressure or hierarchical dynamics.
Lien Smets goes on: ‘We work with the four D’s: Distract, Delay, Delegate and Direct. Not everyone feels comfortable intervening in the moment. And that’s okay. Even offering support afterwards or involving someone else can make a real difference.’
The four D’s:
Distract: deflect or redirect the situation
Delay: respond afterwards, e.g. by offering support
Delegate: involve someone in a position of authority
Direct: address the behaviour in a respectful way
What do participants think?
The first five pilot sessions – for ZAP, ATP and PhD students – received positive feedback. Participants appreciated the safe environment, relatable situations, and especially the practical applicability of the strategies. Reactions included:
‘I need to pay more attention to how others experience certain behaviour. That has broadened my perspective.’
‘Now I realise that responding can also happen afterwards. That takes the pressure off.’
‘Even small gestures of support can make a difference to someone experiencing something difficult.’
Learning to intervene: practical steps
Miep Demuynck, communications officer at the Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, followed the active bystander training course for ATP. What stood out most for her? ’That you can always do something. Even just making eye contact with the victim or asking how they’re doing.’
The training gave her four concrete strategies for responding to inappropriate behaviour. ‘These really give you clear guidance. You don’t have to do anything drastic to make a difference.’
Miep Demuynck, communication responsable at FFBDMiep Demuynck in discussion with a colleague
What is inappropriate behaviour?
During the sessions, Miep noticed the definition of inappropriate was interpreted in lots of ways. ‘Some examples felt more about inclusion, which sparked discussion within the working groups.’ Nevertheless, she found these conversations valuable. ‘We learned that it’s better not to get involved in debating discussions in the moment. It’s more important to first acknowledge the situation and create space for dialogue afterwards.’
Recognising discomfort
What Miep most takes away from the training is the importance of recognising discomfort – in yourself or others. ‘If something doesn’t feel right, it’s always worth talking about it, even afterwards. That insight changed how I look at things.’
She recommends the training wholeheartedly: ‘You don’t need to be an expert to make a difference. What matters is learning to see where you can play a role, in a way that feels suitable for you. I think we all become stronger because of it.’
Just like Miep, Margo Annemans, professor at the Faculty of Design Sciences in the interior architecture programme (specialising in design for health and well-being and inclusive design) also found the ZAP training valuable.
’In my classes, I focus a lot on social issues. Activating students, encouraging them to reflect on their impact – that’s such a vital part. That’s why I found it important to feel more confident when discussing sensitive topics.’
Trained as both an engineer-architect and an anthropologist, Margo’s work explores how culture, design and environments influence users’ well-being. ’Sometimes I ask myself: how far can or should I go? How do I foster openness without creating tension? The training provided useful insights on this.’
Handling sensitivities
Margo noticed varying opinions on what is considered acceptable. ‘What some see as harmless – like telling off-colour jokes in a lab – can be hurtful to others. Just because it’s what’s often done, doesn’t give anyone a free pass. The training showed how important it is to create space for nuance and be mindful of each person’s experience, even if they don’t immediately speak up.’
What stood out the most to her? ‘That you can always respond afterwards. Even if you didn’t dare in the moment. Just asking someone: “I noticed something – how did that feel for you?’’ can already help.’ Margo also highlighted the need for practical exercises. ‘Theory is one thing, but real-life reactions require courage and awareness. Role-plays could be a great addition – not just discussing what you should do, but experiencing what you actually do. That makes all the difference.’
According to Margo, it would be beneficial if more colleagues took the training. ‘The broader the support, the easier it is to act when needed. Then it’s not something you carry alone, but something we all normalise together. That’s how we truly work together to create a safer environment for everyone.’
What’s next?
The group of trainers, including Lien Smets, will meet again soon to evaluate initial experiences and prepare the schedule for the next academic year. ‘We want to expand access and make this training available to as many colleagues as possible,’ she says. ‘Because only when we all take responsibility, can we bring about real cultural change.’
The bystander training is part of UAntwerp’s broader well-being and diversity policy. Other initiatives already available include training on psychological safety, inclusive communication and feedback, as well as the We care platform, a code of conduct and support through confidential advisors.
Why it’s worth responding
To colleagues who are unsure whether to act when they witness inappropriate behaviour, Lien Smets offers this advice: ‘It’s always better to do something than nothing. Every action – no matter how small – can make a difference. Only by taking steps together can we build a safe and caring workplace.’
‘By giving this training, I’ve become more alert and at the same time more compassionate towards myself. It may not always go perfectly, but it’s a learning process. The first step? Just take part.’
