.png)
Exploring how the "Do No Harm" principle can guide organisations in creating fair, respectful, and safe organizational policies.
The principle of “Do No Harm,” is deeply rooted in the medical profession’s ethos of beneficence. While it is often associated with minimizing physical harm, the principle offers a vital framework for organizational decision-making, especially when policies and practices have a far-reaching impact on individuals.
Although it is commonly linked with physical harm, in an organizational context, it speaks to much more than that—it’s about safeguarding the dignity, emotional well-being, and self-respect of everyone within the organization.
At TrustIn, we recognize that policy-making is a complex, powerful process that shapes the culture of any organization. We apply the "Do No Harm" principle to this process, particularly through the lens of organisations, leadership and HR working with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act.
Here, the “Do No Harm” principle is not just about mitigating harm after the fact—it’s about actively ensuring that actions, policies, and norms do not cause harm in the first place. This proactive stance is crucial, as harm in the workplace extends beyond physical injury to include impacts on dignity, self-respect, and emotional well-being.
Understanding Harm Beyond the Surface
Policy, it must be acknowledged, is rarely neutral. It is shaped by the assumptions, biases, and power dynamics of those creating it. Therefore, organisations must interrogate these influences to ensure that their rules, language, and practices uplift rather than marginalize.
Policies and decisions, however well-intentioned, can inadvertently create harm if they fail to consider the diverse realities of those affected. For instance, a seemingly straightforward dress code policy can alienate non-binary employees if it enforces binary norms or rewarding employees based on metrics like long work hours or frequent overtime might disadvantage those who need to balance personal responsibilities, such as parents or individuals with health conditions.
Similarly, rigid hierarchies or convoluted grievance processes may deter individuals from speaking up. Harm in these contexts often manifests in subtler, yet equally damaging ways—through diminished dignity, exclusion from community respect, or erosion of self-esteem.
The IC’s Role: Beyond Compliance
Traditionally, ICs are viewed as reactive bodies—addressing complaints and ensuring compliance with the POSH Act. However, the “Do No Harm” principle calls for a paradigm shift.
Organizations should look to ICs as cultural custodians—not just as bodies for compliance but as entities capable of driving systemic change. ICs must move from merely addressing individual cases to challenging the systemic structures that perpetuate harm. This includes evaluating workplace norms, questioning stereotypes, and identifying gaps in inclusivity.
This means embedding the “Do No Harm” principle into every aspect of organizational culture. Policies must be revisited with an eye for inclusivity, processes must be restructured to prioritize dignity and accessibility, and biases must be consistently challenged.
By asking critical questions—“Who might be harmed by this decision?” or “Are we unintentionally perpetuating systems of inequity?”—Organisations can help create workplaces where harm is not only addressed but actively prevented.
When ICs embrace this proactive approach, they transition from being arbiters of compliance to stewards of transformation—driving meaningful, lasting change within organizations.
Challenging Bias in Decision-Making
Bias is often silent, seeping into everyday decisions and behaviors. ICs especially, must remain vigilant against these biases, particularly when assessing cases. For example, the “calm narrative”—valuing individuals who express themselves in composed and articulate ways—can lead to dismissing the valid grievances of those who react differently due to trauma or distress. Similarly, relying on preconceived notions of what constitutes harassment or inappropriate behavior can perpetuate stereotypes and harm.
ICs need to question whether they are unintentionally favoring those who align with dominant norms, such as being calm or rational, over those whose experiences may challenge these expectations. They must also resist the temptation to offer quick “solutions” such as transfers and promotions that prioritize organizational ease over genuine justice.
IC members must first confront their own biases through deep self-reflection, examining how upbringing, societal norms, and personal assumptions shape their perspectives. This process also involves scrutinizing seemingly minor decisions—like the timing of meetings, tone of written communications, or design of training materials—to ensure they do not unintentionally exclude or marginalize anyone.
A diverse, inclusive IC that includes a range of perspectives, backgrounds and identities is vital to uncovering and addressing these biases. Additionally, creating a culture of empathy, understanding, and continuous learning within the committee can help ensure that all voices are heard and respected, fostering a fairer and more equitable decision-making process.
Addressing the Rape Culture Pyramid
A critical responsibility of organisational culture and policy is addressing harm at its foundation. This aligns with dismantling the rape culture pyramid, which illustrates how seemingly minor actions (such as sexist jokes or microaggressions) contribute to larger systems of violence and inequity.
Organisations play a pivotal role in tackling this pyramid by:
Challenging Everyday Biases: Addressing microaggressions and subtle inequities within workplace norms and policies.
Creating Safe Reporting Spaces: Ensuring employees feel safe to report issues without fear of judgment or retaliation.
Embedding Accountability: Holding individuals and systems accountable for behavior and decisions that perpetuate harm.
Training for Diversity, Safety, and Inclusion
By prioritizing DEI and incorporating an intersectional approach, organizations can create more inclusive policies and practices that actively prevent harm, ensuring all individuals feel respected, valued, and heard in the workplace.
While training sessions are essential, they often place the burden of change on individuals rather than the institution. Organizations must reframe training as a continuous process informed by participant experiences and organizational evolution.
To effectively incorporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles, organizations must acknowledge that the onus cannot rest solely on individuals or communities within the workplace. DEI training and initiatives often focus on fostering awareness and behavioral changes among employees, but this approach risks being superficial if it operates in isolation from institutional transformation.
Moving Beyond Silos: Institutional Accountability
For DEI to create meaningful, systemic change, organizations must ensure that individual efforts are matched by robust institutional accountability. This means embedding DEI values into the fabric of the organization—its policies, processes, culture, and leadership priorities. The intentionality to foster inclusion must originate from the top and permeate every layer of the organization.
Rather than treating DEI as a standalone activity, organizations need to adopt a comprehensive approach where every initiative is framed within a larger strategy of institutional change. This involves:
Leadership Commitment: Leaders must champion DEI efforts, model inclusive behaviors, and take responsibility for driving cultural shifts.
Policy Overhauls: Outdated or restrictive policies should be revisited, with an emphasis on equity and inclusivity. For example, reevaluating leave policies to accommodate diverse cultural and religious practices or ensuring grievance mechanisms are accessible and equitable.
Structural Reforms: Organizations should examine their own systems and structures to identify barriers to inclusion. This includes revisiting performance metrics, hiring practices, and promotional pathways to ensure they reflect a commitment to equity.
Language and Intentionality in Framing
The way organizations frame their DEI initiatives matters. Language should underscore collective accountability, highlighting the shared responsibility of every individual and institution. By emphasizing that DEI is a mutual commitment between employees and the organization, companies can foster a sense of trust and shared purpose.
For example, instead of presenting DEI training as an individual mandate, the narrative could focus on how the organization is evolving to create a more inclusive environment where every voice matters. This approach helps avoid alienating employees or reinforcing the perception that inclusion is an individual burden rather than a collective goal.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: The Role of Human Resources in Shaping Organizational Culture
The responsibility placed on Human Resources (HR) departments is significant. HR departments play a pivotal role in bridging individual and institutional accountability. They are key to designing and communicating policies that align with organizational values while being responsive to employee needs. However, HR alone cannot drive change. It must collaborate with leadership, employees, and DEI committees to ensure that cultural shifts are holistic and sustainable.
Ultimately, institutional accountability ensures that DEI efforts do not remain performative or superficial. By integrating intentionality and collective responsibility into every aspect of organizational life, companies can create environments where inclusion is not just an ideal but a lived reality.
To further illustrate the importance of the "Do No Harm" principle and how it can be applied across various sectors, including organizational policy, we recommend watching this insightful animation. It introduces the core concept of "Do No Harm," explores some of the challenges in meeting this standard, and shares valuable lessons learned from the Do No Harm project. Watch the video here
TrustIn’s Approach: Building Harm-Free Workplaces
TrustIn's Dipstick Culture Surveys provide organizations with a quick, yet impactful snapshot of their cultural health. These surveys are designed to uncover underlying patterns, highlight areas of disconnect, and identify opportunities for fostering a more inclusive and equitable workplace.
TrustIn's Culture Study highlights the critical need for aligning organizational culture with DEI objectives. Our studies demonstrate how organizations often unintentionally undermine their DEI goals when cultural practices fail to reflect stated values. Key insights from the study emphasize the importance of HR’s role in this transformation
Institutional Blind Spots: TrustIn helps HR teams identify systemic biases, such as inequitable pathways for underrepresented groups, and address them with data-driven strategies.
Psychological Safety: A sense of belonging and the freedom to voice ideas without fear of repercussions—is foundational to fostering inclusion. HR must champion initiatives that create safe spaces for dialogue and address power imbalances within the organization.
Collaboration Across Hierarchies: Sustainable culture change requires shared accountability. TrustIn supports HR in facilitating this through targeted training and clear accountability frameworks.
Beyond Performative DEI: We ensure DEI initiatives lead to systemic changes, such as revising policies, strengthening grievance mechanisms, and embedding equity into recruitment and retention practices.
We also partner with organizations to align their policies, practices, and cultures with the “Do No Harm” principle. For ICs, this involves:
Training on Bias Awareness: Equipping members to recognize and address unconscious biases.
Policy Review: Helping organizations create policies that prioritize inclusivity and equity.
Support Systems: Establishing robust support mechanisms for individuals reporting harassment.
Comments