BlueSkyPilot45

Each year in the Netherlands, between 120 and 140 people die as a result of homicide. The gender distribution is relatively consistent: roughly two-thirds of the victims are men, one-third are women.

Interpersonal violence, including abuse by (ex-) partners, family members, or others in a victim’s immediate environment, remains a significant threat to safety and health worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that in 2019, approximately 475,000 people globally died from interpersonal violence. This accounted for 28% of all injury-related deaths and around 8% of all deaths that year.

These figures include only well-documented forms of violence, such as homicide and sexual assault. Other forms — such as partner violence and child abuse — are often underreported and therefore not fully captured.

According to the ‘Prevalentiemonitor Huiselijk Geweld en Seksueel Grensoverschrijdend Gedrag’ (CBS/WODC, 2024), 9% of Dutch people aged 16 and older reported experiencing domestic violence in the past year.

This figure has remained stable since 2020, with similar patterns in the nature of violence: psychological, physical, or stalking. The number of chronic victims (experiencing violence at least monthly) has also remained steady.

Sexual boundary-crossing behaviour has shown some fluctuations, partly driven by media coverage. For example, the public outcry around ‘The Voice of Holland’ led to a spike in reported cases in 2022. By 2024, figures had largely returned to 2020 levels. It is worth noting that response rates to such surveys are relatively low (25–30%), which may affect how representative the findings are. The Voice of Holland tot een piek in meldingen in 2022. In 2024 lagen de cijfers weer grotendeels op het niveau van 2020. Vermeldenswaard is dat de respons op dit soort onderzoeken relatief laag is (25–30%), wat invloed kan hebben op de representativiteit.

What makes violence particularly devastating is that, in many cases, it is preventable.

At DANTES, we are committed to promoting and preserving a safe and productive workplace — a place where people not only feel safe, but are safe. We encourage employers, policymakers, and professionals across sectors to recognise the impact of domestic violence, not just on individuals, but on organisations and society as a whole.

The term ‘querulant’ comes from the Latin word “querelare”, which means ‘to complain’. In scientific literature it is referred to as querulous paranoia:

“A pattern of behaviour in which someone continues to pursue a personal grievance in an unusually persistent manner, with serious damage to his or her economic, social, and personal interests, and with disruptive consequences for the authorities that try to deal with the complaint.”

Querulants differ from ‘normal’ complainants in their extreme persistence and the disproportionate amount of time and resources invested in their struggle. Their behaviour is experienced as increasingly intense, hostile, and coercive by those around them.

There are roughly three types:

The impact and damage are huge. In addition to the emotional damage, which sometimes leads to traumatic experiences for employees, the querulant demands a great deal of time from those who must deal with the complaints. It regularly leads to employee absenteeism.

The trend seems to be that organisations are increasingly struggling with querulant behaviour, and in doing so, they often do not sufficiently realise that it is a psychologically complex phenomenon that cannot simply be stopped.

To limit further damage and prevent escalation, a thorough analysis, expert interpretation and a customised approach are required.

We have expertise and years of experience in guiding organisations that deal with querulants. We offer:

The concept of ‘psychological safety’ often suggests sexual misconduct; suggestive comments, inappropriate jokes and touching. While these should most definitely be taken seriously, sexually inappropriate behaviour is only part of the problem.

Also consider:

When we ask security staff, HR colleagues, auditors and compliance managers at companies, we hear different explanations:

When a psychopathic person is involved in incidents of social insecurity and transgressive behaviour, we often see that the behaviour has been a problem for a long time and that it did not stop at one incident. It took a long time before someone sounded the alarm. Colleagues of the person are often frustrated and, above all, scared. They do not dare to take any action, for fear of reprisals. In many cases, the person in question is avoided and colleagues as well as managers choose to ignore the undesirable behaviour and to downplay it. If there has already been someone who has tried to confront the person about his behaviour, this will have little effect on the situation. Problems are denied or blamed on others. Or the person becomes aggressive and starts a fight.

Psychopaths are not easily discouraged and constantly strive for an even better, better paid or more senior position. They are attracted to positions of power and money. Manipulation, playing people off against each other and putting them under pressure are easily used to achieve their own goals. The essential point is that when they are confronted about their reckless and aggressive attitude, no sense of shame, guilt or remorse is aroused. Such emotions will therefore never be the motivation for them to leave the company. It is therefore not surprising that such individuals can sometimes work for years in an organisation, despite multiple incidents.

Unfortunately, we see too often that it is not the (psychopathic) perpetrator but the victim of the transgressive behaviour who ultimately leaves the company. In many cases, companies lose precious and valuable employees. The damage caused is often underestimated by organisations: dismissals, long-term absences, increased sick leave, lack of motivation, stress, difficulty concentrating, etc. are well-known phenomena among staff and this naturally has an impact on work performance.

Psychopaths thrive in competitive and hierarchical work environments, and the very personality traits they are known for—superficial charm, manipulative behaviour, lack of fear and shame—can help them rise to the top.

Scientific research shows that psychopaths who hold high positions in an organisation are often praised for their charisma and ability to develop new ideas. They can operate purposefully and strategically and are able to make complex or emotionally charged decisions quickly. Strategic decisions that are beneficial to the director himself and perhaps also to the company, but often not to employees. In essence, they have no interest in the personal suffering they cause. The ruthlessness in business decisions is striking.

It is interesting to note that scientific studies show that the actual performance that the psychopathic leader delivers is usually not good but downright weak. The more psychopathic, the worse the performance.

Psychopathy often evokes images of murderous criminals and ruthless serial killers. Hollywood has taught us that psychopaths are bloodthirsty individuals but the reality is much more subtle. Psychopaths are not always violent and most function well in society, in relationships and in the workplace. As mentioned, they can appear charming, intelligent and convincing but at crucial moments lack empathy, guilt and a moral compass. This makes them dangerous in a way that is less visible but can be even more destructive.

Approximately 1% of society meets the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy. This also means that there is a larger group that just misses the criteria required for an official diagnosis, the so-called subclinical group. They don't have the diagnosis, but that doesn't mean they don't exhibit destructive behaviour. Research, by the above-mentioned scientist Dr. Robert Hare, suggests that the percentage of psychopaths in senior and managerial positions in organisations is higher than in the general society: between 4 and 5%.

The message should be clear: psychopathic traits can give the person a successful career, while at the same time they can be disastrous for the organisation and the people around them.

The risks of a psychopath in a leadership position can be summarised as follows:

There is now sufficient knowledge about psychopathy and over the years, sound psychological screening instruments have been developed. These can be used to identify personality traits and therefore also psychopathic characteristics. The expertise to assess potential risk posed by a person with a certain position in a particular working environment is available.

Organisations could consider expanding the standard pre-employment screening for special or sensitive positions with a psychological examination, consisting of several interviews and administration of an extensive, validated personality questionnaire. A screening that is aimed at identifying potential risks. The outcome of such an investigation certainly does not have to lead to a decision whether the person will be hired or not but the sound insight into the behaviour of the new employee can certainly contribute to a risk management plan: a strategy aimed at protecting both the new employee and the people around him, and at preventing unwanted incidents.

Please feel free to contact us to discuss what we can do for your organisation.

Narcissism is a pattern of self-centered, arrogant and unempathetic behavior. It is usually deployed as a defense mechanism by psychologically damaged individuals to compensate for an unstable sense of self. This unstable foundation is often the result of an attachment deficit. During their childhood, high-narcissistic individuals have often missed what is essential for a healthy psychological development: unconditional love, warmth and acceptance by their primary caretakers. Because their needs for love and acceptance have not been met sufficiently by anyone, they have learned early in life that others cannot be trusted, and have learned that they are in fact on their own. If others ultimately don’t care about you and will leave you anyway, why even bother about them?

From this follows a nuance emphasized by some scholars: deep-down, high-narcissistic individuals do want to trust people, cooperate, and even form emotionally intimate relationships, but they do not dare to. They know no better than that the other person will disappoint them anyway, just as their primary caretakers constantly did. Egocentrism, arrogance and unempathetic behavior then serve as their defenses to avoid being damaged again. This is not a conscious process, but this dynamic has become part of the individual’s emotional make-up.

In cases we are involved in regarding troubling behavior and social insecurity, we are often confronted with ongoing, often serious misconduct, and deal with victims who suffer substantial emotional harm as a result. Psychological consideration of offenders’ behavior in such cases frequently points toward the presence of narcissistic personality traits, or disorder. The hypersensitivity to rejection, the self-centered behavior, the urge to take revenge and the disregard for the consequences of one’s behavior are frequently encountered in our cases of stalking, threats and sexually aggressive behavior. Furthermore, the presence of narcissistic traits poses an increased risk to white-collar criminal behavior. Our conclusion: narcissism can cause substantial problems in organizations, and its devastating impact on individuals should not be underestimated.

Narcissistic individuals often come across as confident and tend to be charismatic, goal-oriented and ambitious. As a result, they often enjoy an above average social status and financial prosperity. They often end up in leadership positions because of the aforementioned characteristics. In addition to the individual benefits, a leader's narcissism can also bring benefits to an organization. Narcissistic leaders tend to be charming and know how to inspire their employees. This can be helpful to organizations. Leaders who are self-confident, decisive and goal-oriented can be of value to an organization, especially during times of crisis. What distinguishes a good leader in this from a dysfunctional leader is not the presence or absence of narcissistic traits, it is how a leader deals with his own narcissism. This does however require a certain degree of self-insight and self-criticism, which will be less likely amongst those who fit the diagnostic criteria for personality disorder.

Can highly narcissistic individuals get rid of their narcissism? At its core, this is not possible. These individuals have often been damaged in their lives such that the narcissistic dynamic is so deeply ingrained. However, this does not mean that narcissistic individuals cannot learn to deal with their narcissism. If these individuals are able and willing to reflect on their own behavior and are also willing to look into the abyss of their own past, they can perhaps grow into solid, effective and virtuous leaders. This can lead to significant improvements, both for the narcissistic individual and for the organization.

A nuanced view of narcissism is important: recognizing both its potential dangers and risks, as well as being mindful of its origins and possible benefits. Recognizing (clinical) narcissistic characteristics, distinguishing narcissism from other psychological constructs and setting up a strategy to manage the risks and further support the victim or organization requires extensive training and study.

Dantes has this expertise and can help organizations with complex situations in which narcissistic dynamics may play a role. Do you have questions about this article or about what Dantes can do for your organization? More information and contact details can be found at www.dantespsychology.com.

Marijn Tingen

In his book The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Dr. Mattias Desmet discusses how mass formation and totalitarian tendencies can arise from mechanisms such as confirmation bias and groupthink. He states that in times of uncertainty and fear, people tend to conform to dominant narratives, even if they are harmful. This process can result in a collective loss of critical thinking and individual autonomy.

Desmet describes how in society certain ideas or policy choices are accepted unchallenged, because differing opinions are discouraged or even punished. This not only happens at a political level, but also within organisations, where employees may be afraid to go against prevailing opinion. This creates blind spots in policies and strategies, which can ultimately be detrimental to both employees and the organisation.

Breaking through the phenomena discussed above is crucial for promoting a culture of openness and critical reflection. This is not only essential for innovation and growth but also for ensuring social safety within an organisation. When there is a culture where people feel free to express concerns and share differing opinions, the general sense of social safety increases, as does the willingness to report and flexibility to change. Potential problems and events that could jeopardise the safe culture are addressed faster and more effectively.

For example, a lack of critical reflection can lead to employees not speaking out about unsafe situations or ethical misconduct. This poses a significant risk, especially in sectors where safety and integrity are crucial. Problems remain under the radar for longer and can eventually escalate. Internal investigations into incidents are less objective and problematic employees get off scot-free. Outsiders wonder how it is possible that someone who has displayed long-term, serious and repeated misconduct can still work in the department that he has terrorised for years. An extreme example, but we do encounter them in practice.

By actively working to recognise and counteract confirmation bias and groupthink, organisations can create an environment in which critical thinking flourishes and both individuals and teams reach their full potential. This not only contributes to better decision-making and innovation but also to a culture that promotes social safety and willingness to report.

For more information on how DANTES can support your organisation in fostering a culture of critical thinking and openness, visit www.dantespsychology.com

Inge Nijenhuis

The United States has the highest number of school shootings in the world, with approximately 1,375 documented incidents since 2000. In addition, the U.S. has seen a sharp increase in school shootings over the past 25 years. From about 37 annual school shootings in 2000-2010 to what appears to be about 300 annual shootings in 2021-2024. In Europe, school shootings are much less common, with approximately 15-20 incidents over the past 25 years. European countries that have experienced more than one school shooting during this period include Germany, Finland, France, and the Netherlands. Sweden has experienced a total of two school shootings. The recent Örebro incident in 2025 and a school shooting almost 65 years ago (1961).

Importantly, however, although school shootings occur almost 100 times more frequently in the United States than in Europe, the fatality rate per incident in the U.S. is relatively low (about 0.37 deaths per incident) compared to Europe (about 4-5 deaths per incident). While this suggests that school shootings are uncommon in Europe at this time, recent reports indicate a worrying increase in school violence across the continent.

Research shows that educational institutions today face a wide range of risks and threats, and that maintaining a productive campus security landscape is becoming increasingly complex. This is due in part to the changing social dynamics of our society (the patterns and processes by which people interact), rapid advances in technology, and growing geopolitical tensions, which unfortunately suggest that the motivations for school violence will become more diverse and more complex to predict. To further complicate matters, research has clearly shown that there is no psychological profile of those who perpetrate targeted school violence, including school shooters. However, there is a wide range of research that underscores that school shooters do show so-called “warning behaviors” prior to the attack: they (i) leak information about their plans; (ii) display a pathological fixation on a person or issue; (iii) tend to identify strongly with individuals who have previously committed mass murders; (iv) plan and research their crime; and (v) experience and communicate feelings of desperation and helplessness. There is also evidence that these actors often exhibit deviant and concerning behavior prior to the attack, such as stalking and harassment. They often struggle with mental health issues. Research identifies several other risk factors that should be considered when assessing a case of concerning behavior in schools or other organizations, such as: behavioral changes, social isolation, recent loss, excessive entitlement, and self-centered behavior.

Because there is no psychological profile of a school shooter, relying on standardized risk behaviors and implementing generic interventions will not be sufficient to identify actors of violence. Instead, educational institutions are encouraged to establish Threat Assessment and Management (TAM) teams that can assess all types of threats, not just school shootings. The TAM team should be trained to follow a systematic process for gathering information about behavioral and psychological patterns that represent changes in behavior and may evidence an accelerating risk. The process includes, for example, enabling community engagement, creating a centralized awareness of active concerns, conducting longitudinal case reassessments, and conducting all of its practices in accordance with relevant laws (including privacy laws), policies, and standards of practice. In essence, a TAM team ensures that every student, employee, and other concerned party knows who to talk to if they have concerns or worries about social safety in the workplace.

Dantes has expertise in threat assessment and several years of experience in setting up, building and training Threat Assessment and Management teams, often referred to as “social safety expert teams” in the European context. Please contact us for more information on setting upThreat Assessment and Management Teams.

Simon Oleszkiewicz

This effect occurs when departments or teams within an organisation are primarily internally focused and see all kinds of legal, administrative and organisational limitations, which then prevent them from sharing important information. Information that can contribute to solving a problem, a better assessment of the risk profile or to taking adequate safety measures and a more efficient approach.

Sometimes people are guided by fear of the consequences if, for example, information about employees is shared, but there is often still ignorance about what may and may not be shared. There is often much more allowed than is perceived.

Also, a well-known phenomenon is that certain departments in an organisation overestimate their own role or expertise in tackling a case and underestimate the expertise and relevance of involvement of other expertise or departments. This hinders cooperation and leads to inefficiency, misunderstandings and sometimes even dangerous situations. This is disastrous for social safety and it has a negative impact on the organisational culture. Preventing and addressing undesirable behaviour requires cooperation, trust in each other and is a shared effort.

Social safety is therefore not subject to just the HR department, nor an exclusive task of managers, nor just a task of the safety department or legal affairs. Closer cooperation between these silos when it comes to social safety and concerning behaviour is strongly recommended.

It is therefore a shared responsibility in which policy, clear agreements on the approach, training and culture development go hand in hand. An example: a company with a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for transgressive behaviour has various reporting channels, but employees do not know who they can contact, or they do not dare to do so. HR, safety affairs or the confidential advisor see few reports and think that they have a complete picture of the social safety issues. Practical experience shows that this is a misconception. International studies also show time and again that organisations only know a fraction of what is really going on in the workplace. Employees who should report, experience major barriers. Without cooperation between the above-mentioned silos, a false sense of security also arises.

At DANTES, we guide companies in breaking down silos and strengthening social safety. We do this by making leaders and teams aware of their role and providing them with specific tools and training. Organisations that invest in integrated collaboration reap the benefits of a safe and resilient work culture.

If you would like more information on the above, please feel free to contact us.

Inge Nijenhuis