When No One Is Watching

Summary

Sometimes the real test of an institution isn’t what it does when a crisis hits the headlines, it’s what it does when no one is watching.

The stories involving the Sydney Swans, Scots College and St Gregory’s over the past week have been a stark reminder of how quickly an institution’s culture is tested.

These moments show us something important. Parents shape their kids, but schools, clubs and communities shape the environment those kids move through. And when something goes wrong, whether it’s behaviour in a team hotel, a party outside school grounds, or a disclosure that lands heavily on a principal’s desk.  it’s never just about rules. It’s about whether people feel safe, whether leaders act with courage, and whether values actually guide behaviour when the stakes are high.

I have written an article that explores that fragile space between law, culture and humanity.  How institutions can support without prejudging, act without overreaching, and build cultures where dignity, respect and accountability aren’t just slogans but lived experiences.

If any of this feels relevant to you, your business or your institution, please reach out for a 55:5 chat. These conversations matter, and I’m always happy to help people navigate them with clarity and care.

What Institutions Do When No One Is Watching

What institutions do when no one is watching says everything about their culture, The Sydney Swans, The Scots College and St Gregory's College have been challenged in recent weeks. I was also intrigued after reading Louise Clegg's defence of The Scots College principal, Dr Ian Lambert. Particularly as I have worked for over 15 years helping organisations strengthen their values and culture, both before and after incidents like these occur.

Clegg positions that parents retain responsibility for their children and that schools cannot be accountable for every action occurring beyond their direct control, deserves consideration. However, parental and institutional responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. Schools (and sporting clubs) may not control every private action, yet they help shape the norms, expectations and attitudes that influence those actions long before any incident occurs.

In critical moments these schools and club face wicked problems. Wicked problems are described as complex rather than ‘simply’ complicated, often involving multiple stakeholders with competing views. There are no linear solutions, when solutions are identified they often generate other 'problems' and unintended consequences.  While there is no single 'right' or 'wrong' answer, there are better or worse alternatives.

The deeper question is not simply how an institution responds once a matter becomes public. It is whether the same principles and standards would guide its decisions if no one were watching.

Distinct Responsibilities

Parents have primary responsibility for raising their children, setting boundaries around alcohol, parties, relationships and online behaviour. Adults who knowingly facilitate underage drinking or allow unsupervised gatherings cannot outsource every consequence to a school. This part of Clegg's argument should not be dismissed.

But institutions are not bystanders. Schools do more than educate, just as sporting clubs do more than field teams. They create environments in which people learn what is valued, tolerated, challenged and quietly ignored. Organisations that promise to develop character and leadership cannot claim influence when things go well but deny it when serious cultural concerns emerge.

The Law Is a Foundation, Not the Full Measure of Integrity

No law, policy or code of conduct can anticipate every situation an organisation will face. The law determines criminal responsibility, but it does not define culture. Legality is often a moral minimum, not a full answer to the question: what is the right thing to do?

Cultural failures often occur in the space between what is technically permissible, an institution’s stated values and most importantly the institutions norms (the behaviours that are allowed).

This does not mean leaders should disregard the law or improvise justice. Procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence must be protected. Allegations must not be presented as established facts, and institutions should not conduct amateur criminal trials.

Nor does it prevent an institution from expressing concern for a person reporting harm, providing specialist support, preserving information, cooperating with police, enforcing independently established behavioural standards or examining whether its culture is working.

Compassion is not a finding of guilt and nor is providing support prejudgment.

The Compliance Trap

When institutions confront a serious incident, the instinctive response is often to introduce another rule or revise a policy. Some of this may be necessary. But none of it can anticipate every circumstance people will encounter.

Accumulating controls can create the appearance of stronger governance without producing better judgment. A policy may explain what is prohibited, but it cannot have an answer for every ambiguous situation.

Counterintuitively, excessively compliance‑driven cultures can weaken personal responsibility. People begin to ask, “Am I allowed to do this?” rather than, “Is this right?” Conduct not expressly prohibited may be treated as acceptable.  This can create a loss of self-efficacy, with a culture of learned helplessness created in the vacuum.   

Rules and policies are the floor, not the ceiling, of ethical behaviour, and leadership must fill the space between them. They must be supported by principles, meaningful to the institution, such as respect, fairness and accountability. These principles help people explore better questions:

• Who could be affected by this decision?
• Is there a power imbalance?
• Could someone’s vulnerability be exploited?
• Is this consistent with our values, even if there is no rule?
• Would I make the same choice if it became public?
• Would I accept this behaviour if it affected someone I cared about?

Building this critical leadership capability requires more than periodic training. It requires continuing dialogue about realistic dilemmas and useful thought experiments to explore how organisational principles are lived and the leadership required during critical moments.

People need opportunities to test assumptions, hear different perspectives and practise making decisions when the answer is not obvious or critical.  Importantly, dialogue must occur before a crisis, not only in response to one.

Parallel Responsibility: The Sydney Swans Example

The Sydney Swans’ response illustrates how institutional and legal responsibilities can operate in sync.

This is a useful example with the club standing down five players for the remainder of the 2026 season after determining that they had breached club standards relating to post‑match conduct, acting independently of any criminal process. The sanctions were separate from police investigation into allegations of sexual assault. No charges have yet been laid, and the club did not purport to punish the players for alleged criminal offence.

This distinction is important.

Police investigate criminal conduct, courts determine guilt and institutions such as Clubs (and Schools) are responsible for the behavioural and cultural standards it sets for its players (students). The police investigation did not prevent the Swans from responding to conduct outside of the clubs behavioural expectations.

The Swans Case and What Culture Actually Looks Like

The Swans' response invites an uncomfortable thought experiment:

Would the same action have been taken if no one outside their organisation knew about the incident?

How would your own organisation act, knowing that with action the incident will likely become public?

Public scrutiny can expose neglected problems and cultures of silence, but institutions should not wait for it to act. It can also produce hurried, highly visible action designed principally to protect reputation. Strong sanctions is not, by itself, proof of a strong culture. The real test is that the gap between 'what is said' and 'what is done' is as small as possible.

Would the response be the same if the person is a scholarship student or the child of an influential family? Would the same support be offered if there were no headlines? Would leaders examine culture if sponsors were not asking questions?

None of this, though, is best measured by a values statement or a carefully worded response after an incident becomes public.

It is revealed through everyday choices: the degrading joke that is challenged or ignored, the complaint that is explored or quietly managed, the influential person who is held accountable or protected. Having a complaints procedure does not mean people feel safe using it, nor does having values displayed on a wall mean those values will be lived.

The relevant questions are practical: Do students understand that consent must be freely and affirmatively given? Do girls feel safe and respected? Do young people trust the reporting process? Are patterns of sexism and misogyny identified early? Are students encouraged to challenge degrading behaviour within their peer groups?

An independent cultural review may be appropriate, not as an admission, but as a responsible examination of whether the institution’s environment reflects its stated values.

Leadership Is an Activity, Not a Position

Formal authority may belong to principals, boards, executives and parents, but leadership is not confined to those holding titles.

Leadership occurs whenever someone exercises moral agency: a teacher challenges degrading language, a student questions the conduct of friends, a coach refuses to excuse a talented player, a parent initiates an uncomfortable conversation.

Sustainable cultural change cannot be delivered by a principal or board alone. The entire community needs the understanding, capability and permission to exercise ethical judgment.

Good intentions are not enough. People need to know how to recognise risk, respond to disclosures, intervene safely, distinguish support from investigation and escalate concerns appropriately. The desire to act with integrity must be matched by the capability and courage to do so.

Maintaining the Boundary Between Culture and Law

Institutions can manage culture without overstepping into criminal justice if they maintain clear boundaries:

• Separate known conduct from alleged criminal conduct.
• Act on facts the institution can fairly establish while leaving criminal allegations to police and courts.
• Support without prejudging.
• Use proportionate interim measures.
• Protect procedural fairness.
• Examine systems as well as individuals.
• Apply standards consistently.
• Build ethical capability before a crisis.

This is neither institutional silence nor institutional vigilantism, and that distinction matters for every decision that follows. It is principled action within a clearly defined sphere of responsibility.

The Question Beneath the Controversy

Everyone has a role to play, parents raise and supervise, schools & sporting clubs educate, safeguard and shape culture and behavioural standards. Police investigate crime, whilst the courts determine guilt.

These roles overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

Culture cannot be delegated to a policy, nor can integrity be reduced to compliance. Critically, Leadership cannot be confined to those holding formal authority, everyone is and can be a leader.

They are expressed through the decisions made by parents, students, teachers, coaches, executives and peers, particularly when the right course is difficult, inconvenient and or personally costly.

The real question for every school, club and institution, whether it concerns parents, students, coaches or executives, is not:

What did we do once the public found out? It is:

What did we do before anyone had to ask?

But maybe the best thought experiment of all to determine the strength of your culture is to reflect honestly and consider:

What would we have done if no one was watching?

Because this tells us everything about our culture.