workplace bullying case study examples

Jennifer Kramer
Brandon Ruiz
Shoshee Hui
Dat T. Phan
Courtney Luengo
Veronica Gomez
Employment Law
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Disability & ADA Compliance
Gender Discrimination
Pregnancy & FMLA
Race & National Origin
Religious Discrimination
Sexual Orientation & Gender Identification
Wrongful Termination
Retaliation
Contract Workers Rights
Minimum Wage
Salary Hourly Classification
Wage & Hour Class Action
Civil Right Federal Subsection 1983
Qui Tam Government Contract Fraud
Pharmaceutical Sales
Refuser Cases
Privacy Rights
Claims By Public Entity Employees
Areas Served
In The News
Case Results

True Stories of Workplace Bullying: Case Examples to Help You Understand Your Rights

Do you think you’re being bullied at work? If so, your workplace bully could be violating California and Federal law due to their harassing behaviors. While bullying itself is not unlawful, there are anti-bullying legislative measures being brought to the forefront all across the country, including the Healthy Workplace Bill. In addition to anti-bullying legislation, the Workplace Bullying Institute is also striving to eradicate bullying on the job by dedicating their efforts to anti-bullying education, research, and consulting for individuals, professionals, employers, and organizations.

Workplace bullying comes in many forms and can be unlawful if this type of harassment is based on an employee’s national origin, age, gender, disability, or other protected characteristics. Bullies also typically engage in these unlawful behaviors more than once rather than in isolated incidents.

In the spirit of the Workplace Bullying Institute’s Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week, we’ve decided to offer some insight into real workplace bullying, retaliation and discrimination cases from around the country that can help you understand your own rights when it comes to employment harassment.

Table of Contents

Real Workplace Bullying Case Examples

Microsoft to pay $2 million in workplace bullying case.

AUSTIN, TX – After seven years, Michael Mercieca finally saw the courts order Microsoft to pay for workplace bullying that almost led him to the breaking point.

The Texas employment labor law case judge, Tim Sulak, found Microsoft guilty of “acting with malice and reckless indifference” in an organized program of office retaliation against Mercieca.

“They (Microsoft Corporation) remain guilty today, tomorrow and in perpetuity over egregious acts against me and racist comments by their executive that led to the retaliation and vendetta resulting in my firing,” said Mercieca.

Previously, a jury, by unanimous agreement, found that Microsoft knowingly created a hostile work environment that led to Mercieca’s constructive dismissal. Mercieca was a highly regarded member of the tech giant’s sales department and had an unblemished record, but found himself trapped in a workplace conspiracy where his supervisors and coworkers undermined his work, falsely accused him of sexual harassment, and expense account fraud, marginalized him, and blocked his promotions. These harassing behaviors began when Mercieca ended a relationship with a woman who then went on to become his boss. Human relations at Microsoft did nothing to stop the bullying, either.

“Rather than do the right thing, the management team went after Michael by getting a female employee to file a sexual harassment complaint and a complaint of retaliation against him,” says Paul T. Morin. “Microsoft could have taken Mercieca’s charges seriously and disciplined the senior manager but instead it engaged in the worst kind of corporate bullying.”

Read the full story

King Soopers to Pay $80,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

DENVER, CO – Dillon Companies, Inc., owners of the King Soopers supermarket chain in Colorado will pay $80,000 for bullying a learning-disabled employee who worked at its Lakewood, Colorado store.

According to the EEOC’s disability discrimination lawsuit, two store supervisors repeatedly subjected Justin Stringer, an employee who worked at King Soopers for a decade, to repeated bullying and taunting in the workplace because of his learning disability. The EEOC alleged that the bullying resulted in Stringer’s termination.

“Employees with disabilities must be treated with the same dignity and respect as all other members of the work force,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “The EEOC will continue to enforce the ADA to protect the rights of disabled employees and applicants.”

DHL Global Forwarding Pays $201,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination Suit

DALLAS, TX – Air Express International, USA, Inc. and Danzas Corporation, doing business as DHL Global Forwarding, will pay $201,000 to nine employees and provide other significant relief to settle a national origin hostile environment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC charged DHL Global with subjecting a class of Hispanic employees to bullying, discrimination, and harassment due to their national origin. According to the suit, Hispanic employees at DHL’s Dallas warehouse were bullied at work by being subjected to taunts and derogatory names such as “wetback,” “beaner,” “stupid Mexican” and “Puerto Rican b-h”. The Hispanic workers, who included persons of Mexican, Salvadoran and Puerto Rican heritage, were often ridiculed by DHL personnel with demeaning slurs which included referring to the Salvadoran worker as a “salvatrucha,” a term referring to a gangster. Other workers were identified with other derogatory stereotypes.

Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, stated, “Bullying Hispanic workers for speaking a language other than English is a distinct form of discrimination, which, when coupled with ethnic slurs, is clearly motivated by prejudice and national origin animus. Sometimes job discrimination isn’t just about hiring, firing or promotion; it’s about an employer promoting disharmony and disrespect through an unhealthy work environment.”

Wal-Mart to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Age and Disability Discrimination Suit

DALLAS, TX – Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, L.L.C. (Wal-Mart) has agreed to pay $150,000 and provide other significant relief to settle an age and disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC charged in its suit that Wal-Mart discriminated against the manager of the Keller, Texas Walmart store by subjecting him to bullying, harassment, discriminatory treatment, and discharge because of his age.

According to the EEOC, David Moorman was ridiculed with frequent bullying and taunts at work from his direct supervisor, including being called “old man” and “old food guy.” The EEOC also alleged that Wal-Mart fired Moorman because of his age.

“Mr. Moorman was subjected to taunts and bullying from his supervisor that made his working conditions intolerable,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark. “The EEOC remains committed to prosecuting the rights of workers through litigation in federal court.”

Under the terms of the two-year consent decree settling the case, Wal-Mart will pay $150,000 in relief to Moorman under the terms of the two-year consent decree. Wal-Mart also agreed to provide training for employees on the ADA and the ADEA, which will include an instruction on the kind of conduct that could constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment.

Everyone deserves to work in a safe, supportive environment and workplace bullies should be dealt with accordingly. If you are being bullied at work, contact our expert California employment lawyers today for your free consultation.

more than 25 years of experience

Trusted counsel when you need it most.

Practice Areas

Local Office

3600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1908 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Light contrast (default)
Increased contrast

Bullying case studies

The following case studies provide examples of workplace bullying, its impact on an individual’s health and safety and examples of how employers failed to control the risk.

Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed at an employee or group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety.

Bullying of one employee

M started his first job as an apprentice plumber at the age of 16. Two years into his apprenticeship, M made a complaint to WorkSafe about his experiences at work, which included:

his boss calling him gay and using offensive language towards him
his boss encouraging other employees to call him names, ask inappropriate questions and make crude insinuations about his personal life
his boss taking his mobile phone and making him believe he had posted inappropriate comments on a female friend's page
having a live mouse put down the back of his shirt by another employee
having his work shorts ripped up by his boss
having liquid nails squirted into his hair and face by fellow employees
being beaten with plumbing pipes and having hose connectors thrown at him by his boss and fellow employees
being spat on by employees
having a rag doused with methylated spirits held over his mouth by his boss

The impact on M's physical and mental health

For a long time, M felt too afraid of losing his job to complain to his boss about the treatment he was subjected to. However, he eventually became distressed to the point that he was afraid to go to work. He began experiencing nightmares, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, getting angry for no reason, tearfulness, depression, anxiety and stress.

M was eventually diagnosed with a psychological disorder which prevented him from being able to return to work with his employer.

Risk to health and safety

The bullying behaviour that M was subjected to at work impacted his health and safety and resulted in both physical and psychological injury. The employer failed to control that risk as it did not have a bullying policy, and did not provide proper supervision, information, instruction and training to its employees on workplace bullying.

Prosecution outcome

The employer in the actual case was found guilty of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and was convicted and fined $12,500.

Bullying of multiple employees

S, m, l and j's story.

S, M, L and J were part of a group of employees at a commercial bakery where they were required to perform tasks including baking, sandwich preparation, general food preparation, cleaning and delivery of orders to local businesses.

They alleged they had been subjected to verbal, physical and emotional abuse by their employer over a period of two years. The abuse included:

being called 'pig', 'porky', 'dog' and other derogatory names by their boss
being sworn at, with their boss using foul and abusive language
their boss yelling and grunting at them for no apparent reason
having items such as sticks thrown at them or at their desks
their boss threatening them with physical harm, including being attacked by dogs and being dissolved in acid
having trolleys pushed into the backs of their legs
being labelled as 'useless' and 'a waste of space' by their boss
being told by their boss to 'go away and die, and make sure you die quietly'

The impact on the victims' physical and mental health

One of the women reported that as a result of the bullying, she had 'lost my friends, my life, my world and my mind'. Others reported that they suffered mental and physical distress, including depression and exacerbation of other psychological conditions. Some went on to suffer relationship breakdowns.

The treatment S, M, L and J and their colleagues were subjected to at work created a risk to their health and safety and resulted in them suffering both physical and psychological injuries. The employer had no systems or procedures in place to regulate that workplace behaviour and no policies or procedures to educate employees in respect of appropriate workplace behaviour and workplace bullying.

The employer in the actual case was found guilty of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and was convicted and fined $50,000.

Bullying of an employee by a manager

S is a teacher in the private sector and has 20 years of experience at the school. The school was going through a change management process. S made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an Order to Stop Bullying based on allegation which included:

The principal, M, allocating a business manager to conduct S's annual review despite the fact that the business manager had not conducted any other teacher's review, had no educational experience and had recently had unpleasant exchanges with S.
M entered a discussion between S and the pay clerk about S's long service leave request and, standing very close to S with clenched fists, said 'I have not signed off on it. You have to wait.' M was not actually dealing with the leave application.
On S's return from long service leave, S was directed to complete an induction program for new employees and was appointed a mentor with less experience than she had. S was the only employee to have to do the induction on return from leave and the only employee who was not new to be allocated a mentor.

The impact on S's physical and mental health

As a result of the behaviours, S felt isolated, targeted and demeaned in the workplace. S was also insulted, embarrassed and humiliated by being allocated a mentor and having to do the induction training in spite of her 20 years' experience. S felt so distressed because of the personal behaviour of the principal towards her that S saw her doctor and was given time off work.

The treatment S was subjected to at work impacted on her health and safety and resulted in her suffering a psychological injury. The employer could have prevented this from occurring by:

ensuring the appropriate person conducted the annual review
training managers in how to interact professionally with employees
providing appropriate training to employees based on their experience in the job

Bullying of one employee by multiple colleagues

K was a police officer and was successful in being promoted into a new team. K made a common law claim for damages alleging she suffered injuries as a result of her employer's negligence. The behaviours that led to K suffering a mental injury allegedly included:

being given the worst desk normally reserved for temporary staff
being told that her supervisor thought she had slept with the boss to get the job
after announcing she was pregnant, the supervisor asked her if she had slept with the boss to get the job
the supervisor calling HR in front of her and asking if she could be replaced because she was pregnant
the supervisor told K that the only way he could get rid of her was if she voluntarily relinquished the job and asked if she was willing to do so
being called 'the black widow' by the supervisor when she walked into the room.
being socially ostracised by the team
having difficulty getting time off to look after her child post maternity leave when other people had no trouble getting time off to play golf
not being invited on a social club interstate trip
being shouted at when she questioned being left out of the social club interstate trip

The impact on K's physical and mental health

K went from being a fit and healthy young woman to being unable to work and suffering from depression, high anxiety and panic attacks.

The treatment that K was subjected to at work impacted on her health and safety and resulted in her suffering a psychological injury. The employer could have prevented this from occurring by:

ensuring that appropriate supervision was provided under Section 21(2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
providing appropriate training to its managers on how to handle maternity leave arrangements and post-maternity leave return to work
providing appropriate training to all employees about acceptable workplace behaviour

Employer duties

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act) requires employers to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as reasonably practicable. If it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks, the employer must reduce risks, so far as reasonably practicable.

The best approach to deal with risks to health and safety associated with workplace bullying is to implement appropriate measures in the workplace.

In line with their duty to eliminate and reduce risks to health, including psychological health, employers have a responsibility to identify hazards and assess associated risks that may lead to workplace bullying. As an employer, you must control any associated risks, review and, if necessary, revise risk control measures.

This information is from 'Workplace bullying: A guide for employers'. The complete guide is available in two formats.

Website version PDF guide

Related information

Worksafe victoria.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

How Bullying Manifests at Work — and How to Stop It

Ludmila N. Praslova,
Ron Carucci,
Caroline Stokes

It’s a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions.

The term workplace bullying describes a wide range of behaviors, and this complexity makes addressing it difficult and often ineffective. For example, most anti-bullying advice, from “anger management” to zero-tolerance policies, deals with more overt forms of bullying. Covert bullying, such as withholding information or gaslighting, is rarely considered or addressed. In this piece, the authors discuss the different types of bullying, the myths that prevent leaders from addressing it, and how organizations can effectively intervene and create a safer workplace.

While the organizational costs of incivility and toxicity are well documented, bullying at work is still a problem. An estimated 48.6 million Americans, or about 30% of the workforce, are bullied at work. In India, that percentage is reported to be as high as 46% or even 55% . In Germany, it’s a lower but non-negligible 17% . Yet bullying often receives little attention or effective action.

Ludmila N. Praslova , PhD, SHRM-SCP, uses her extensive experience with neurodiversity and global and cultural inclusion to help create talent-rich workplaces. The author of The Canary Code , she is a professor of graduate industrial-organizational psychology and the accreditation liaison officer at Vanguard University of Southern California. Follow Ludmila on LinkedIn .
Ron Carucci is co-founder and managing partner at Navalent , working with CEOs and executives pursuing transformational change. He is the bestselling author of eight books, including To Be Honest and Rising to Power . Connect with him on Linked In at RonCarucci , and download his free “How Honest is My Team?” assessment.
CS Caroline Stokes is a stakeholder capital business sustainability coach and strategist, and CEO of FORWARD , working with leaders and teams in AI, cybersecurity, and digital entertainment.

Partner Center

Eric Lander – A Workplace Bullying Case Study

Making of a science guru …

Eric Lander was a Brooklyn-born math whiz kid. At 17, he won a science talent search contest. He graduated from Princeton with a BA in Mathematics. Earning a Rhodes scholarship, his PhD from Oxford was in mathematics. While teaching economics at Harvard Business School, he studied neurobiology, microbiology and genetics on the way toward a much different career. That supplementary training drove him to genomic research in 1986 at the origins. He taught at MIT and became one of the leaders of its Broad Institute.

At age 30, he won a MacArthur fellowship, dubbed the “genius award.” Besides early work on the Human Genome Project and CRISPR gene editing techniques, he launched at least two for-profit companies translating genome research findings (for which he holds patents) to patient care, one through cancer-treating drug development. His reported wealth is in excess of $45 million. To his credit, he serves on the Board of the Innocence Project after providing expert testimony on the group’s behalf in a legal case.

Lander is firmly established in the academic pantheon, showered with numerous awards and ratings placing him at #1 or #2 in the world in the genomic reserch field. The accolades led him to remorselessly treat rivals with disdain and rancor. His critics, recipients of his wrath called him “Eric Slander.”

The point of understanding his background is to recognize the source of his confidence in his narcissistic entitlement. In his mind, who could compare? One can wonder if he was a cocky, arrogant teen. But by the time Joe Biden met him, he was most certainly considered “brilliant,” with the caveat that he could be “difficult.” As with all high-profile, politically connected bullies, all that endorsers and supporters choose to hear or see is “brilliance.” The reputation for toxic interpersonal relationships with peers and subordinates is all too easy to disregard.

Road to the White House …

While Lander was at the MIT Broad Institute, Bruce Reed, the once president of the overarching Broad Foundation, shared an orbit with him. Reed is currently serving as deputy chief of staff in the White House. VP Joe Biden in the Obama administration launched a pet project, the Biden Cancer Initiative. Lander was invited to serve on its Board. So, when President Biden took office, he nominated his close friend Lander to direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and to serve as his personal science advisor.

The OSTP is a small bureaucracy of 140 staff within the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Remarkably, Biden elevated OSTP directorship the President’s Cabinet, perhaps because of his closeness to Lander. Lander required Senate confirmation. He was confirmed by voice vote but not until he was challenged (by Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth) to apologize for previously discounting the work of two women researchers (who won the Nobel prize for their contributions to CRISPR advances and who engaged in patent disputes with Lander). There was also some questionable contact with Jeffrey Epstein, but most everyone rich and famous intersected with the pedophile.

Please understand that Lander enjoys what we call at WBI “Executive Sponsorship.” That is, if or when bullying is reported, the higher-ups — Reed and Biden — in Lander’s case will find a way to defend or deflect the accusations. Sponsors need not be actual executives. In Lander’s case, a POTUS had his back.

In normal times, complainants about harassment or mistreatment face institutional gaslighting and demeaning. Jennifer Freyd called the process — DARVO. First employers deny the charges. Then, complainants are vilified and demonized. Their characters are assassinated. Then, the most remarkable thing happens — roles are reversed by the accused back by employers. The actual, true victim is portrayed as the offender, making the accused bully the fake victim. This sounds shocking, but the process is followed for all government whistleblowers. DARVO describes the retaliation all complainants suffer. This strange series of predictable events results in the exit of complainants, not people accused of bullying.

DARVO used to be outrageous and shocking. I fear societally, we are normalizing the reversed world where truth and science are treated as opinions, denied by so many of our fellow Americans.

Positive steps taken to block DARVO in the EOP

When Biden swore-in individuals (on a zoom screen) joining his administration on day one, he pledged to “fire on the spot, no ifs, ands, or buts” anyone who treats another person with disrespect. I was certainly excited to hear such a bold proclamation. Here’s the video of his promise. ( https://youtu.be/y-PN1WWVo4g )

Shortly after taking office, the EOP promulgated a “Safe and Respectful Workplace Policy” for the OSTP. It prohibits “repeated behavior that a reasonable individual would find disrespectful, intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive.” It covers bullying and degrading conduct that does not involve discriminatory conduct (e.g., status-based harassment). There is also a provision prohibiting exclusion from “meetings, conversations and assignments,” an anti-ostracism clause. The text of the policy is hiding from google’s tenacles. However, other agencies have policy extensions to include mistreatment above and beyond harassment.

In other words, the EOP, as employer, declared bullying unacceptable behavior. That step alone goes further than nearly every U.S. employer. All that’s left to effect the desired change is to faithfully enforce the policy when violations are confirmed. That second step is also rare.

Landers’ lifelong bullying manifests at OSTP, Surprised?

Into the OSTP with career, non-appointed staff came the wunderkind, Eric Lander, science god. He began work at the start of May 2021. His tenure lasted a mere nine months.

The inside view of Lander as leader comes from the reports of 14 employees who shared illustrations of his cruelty with the author of a Politico article that ran on the morning of February 7, 2022. The accounts of abusive conduct included: – being positive and ebullient with outsiders, changing moods when behind closed doors (Jekyll and Hyde) – laughed or taunted subordinates in front of other colleagues – asked questions that are obviously not in the person’s area of expertise until they admit they don’t know the answer – bullies both men and women, but takes delight in trying to embarrass female colleagues in front of others – retaliated against staff for speaking out – asked questions by calling people names, disparaging them, embarrassing them in front of their peers – asks the same question over and over, getting louder and louder each time – yells, screams, everyone is afraid of him – shunning staff – taking away a person’s duties, replacing them or driving them out of the agency – women have been left in tears, traumatized, and feeling vulnerable and isolated

Lander sometimes feigned contrition: said one staffer, “After repeatedly insulting and humiliating me in front of colleagues, Lander acknowledged his inability to control himself, telling me ‘I hate that I do it’.” But not so much that he stopped.

No one had ever made him stop. He was open and brazen, knowing he had support from the top.

This was his lifelong pattern. Why would anyone be surprised?

Rachel Wallace, successful complainant

Ms. Wallace worked at the OSTP during both Obama and Trump administrations. She was an EOP veteran since the Clinton administration. She served as both general counsel and chief operating officer at OSTP. Bullies tend to identify the go-to expert on-site and launch a focused campaign to destroy and undermine that person. It makes no sense, but bullying is an illogical, unreasonable phenomenon. This might have been what Lander did to Wallace. He demoted her to deputy counsel.

Wallace filed a complaint against Lander and “other OSTP leadership” in September, claiming violations of the “Safe and Respectful Workplace Policy.” The investigation took two months. An investigation followed. I assume it was conducted by internal White House staff because the person who reported the findings was Christian Peele, White House deputy director of management and administration for personnel (a long title for HR).

The finding was not the typical brush-off conclusion of “personality style differences.” To the EOP’s credit, Peele reported in a January briefing that the investigation found “credible evidence of disrespectful interactions with staff by Dr. Lander and OSTP leadership.” His misconduct was not “gender-based discrimination.” Lander was an equal opportunity offender. Several staff provided testimony, often granted anonymity for their safety. There was convergence of perceptions. The picture of Lander as abuser was clear.

“Corrective action” was warranted and ostensibly taken, according to the White House.

The failed institutional response

The White House said “leadership” (whoever that is, did it include President Biden?) met with Lander. The “corrective action” seems to have been left up to Lander to implement. In other words, he was told correct himself because the President expects it. This is a 65 year old man with a long track record of narcissistic behavior. How was he supposed to change? More important, why would he change with no pressure from POTUS to do so?

Delays are part of this story. The two-month investigation was completed in December. That meant it did not begin until one month after the complaint was filed. The holidays passed allowing another month to pass before a January briefing about the investigation’s findings.

Despite a confirmed violation of the policy with “Respectful Workplace” in its title AND despite Biden’s very public pronouncement that disrespectful actors would be fired “on the spot,” Lander remained OSTP director until his self-designated resignation date of Feb. 18. When Biden said termination with no if’s, and’s or but’s would result, he meant but for his revered confidante and buddy Dr. Lander.

Word reached Lander that Politico reporter Alex Thompson was preparing a damning article about the fiasco. We know this because on Friday Feb. 4 before release of the article on Monday Feb. 7, Lander wrote an “apologetic” email to staff regarding his “disrespectful or demeaning way” of speaking to staff.

Rachel Wallace blasted the half-hearted email as “disingenuous. It compounded the deep hurt and damage he has caused by ignoring these other acts of aggression, harassment and retaliation.” To her, this was no apology.

According to the transcript of the White House press briefing on Feb. 7, press secretary Jen Psaki actually said that Lander’s compliance with the unspecified “corrective actions” would be monitored moving forward. She confirmed that Lander had been allowed to outline his personal plan to build a respectful work environment at OSTP. Why was he still working despite the POTUS pledge to terminate? Because he was vetted by the Senate confirmation process. Huh?

Later that day, Lander crafted his letter of resignation, not to take effect until 11 days later. He characterized his actions as pushing colleagues to reach goals, sometimes “challenging and criticizing.” That’s “org speak” for justifying what “leaders” must do. He admitted guilt about the way he said things to people. But, as all bullies profess when caught, “that was never my intention.” His one genuine admission was that “it was my fault and my responsibility.” Yes. That’s true.

[Don’t cry for Lander. He is no victim. He can return to his two positions: professor of biology at MIT and professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School. Wondering if either of those institutions have policies to shield staff from Lander’s wrath certain to play out there. They better prepare themselves.]

The first step to accountability is when offenders take personal responsibility.

However, the institution of the EOP did not fulfill its leader’s promise in a responsible manner.

Yes, a good policy that extended protections against mistreatment beyond the narrow guidelines for discriminatory misconduct was written — Safe and Respectful Workplace. Yes, an investigation of complaints was done. The EOP did not DARVO Rachel Wallace like Eric Lander did. And finally, the findings reflected the reality of the toxic work environment Lander created for OSTP staff.

However, the EOP gets failing grades for delaying the start of the investigation. Why did it take two months to speak with between nine and 14 staff? Then, why were the findings held for another month after the fact finding ended?

EOP deserves no credit for pushing the complaint out of public view without press scrutiny, treating it as an HR-level concern. Lander’s political experience has been shaped by Reed and Biden. His misdeeds should be their concern and their responsibility to fix. OSTP is probably too small an agency to have its own HR office. That’s why Peele from the White House got involved. But Peele is HR. HR in no organization has the authority to hold an agency director accountable. Lander outranked Peele.

It was up to Reed or Biden to terminate Lander. Oops. They were the bully’s sponsors and enablers. Therein lies the explanation for allowing Lander to self-correct without any adverse consequences, despite being guilty of violating the policy.

Ironically, Lander attended a public presentation after the investigation and after the confirmed violations in which Biden put Lander in charge of his “cancer moonshot” project. I hope Biden was not aware of Lander’s transgressions. HR feels obligated to “protect” executives from negative news. Biden needs to tell Peele and White House counsel he needs to be notified in the future of similar cases. If Biden was aware, did he think the meek self-correction decision was adequate?

My reading between the lines of news accounts is that complaints were made about others in OSTP leadership. Were these colleagues of Landers who followed him into government service? If so, they certainly would be loyal sycophants of his, accustomed to, and approving of, his management “style” that had been deemed unacceptable. If they are not removed also, the toxic work environment at OSTP will likely continue. Stay tuned. Lopping off the leader’s head is rarely sufficient to restore safety and health to a workplace.

In conclusion, EOP’s most tragic failure was to expose 140 people to a tyrannical boss who inflicted stress-related health damage with impunity. As the months passed when EOP dithered over the investigation, reporting the findings and waiting for Lander to self-correct, people suffered. Rachel Wallace knew this. Bullying is not simply about the litany of tactics and shenanigans, it’s about the health-harming destructive consequences of abusive conduct. Before OSTP can move on, healing has to take place.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/eric-lander-white-house-investigation-00006077

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/07/1079028828/top-white-house-science-adviser-announces-resignation-after-reports-of-bullying

https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2022/02/08/resignation-of-biden-aide-brings-new-attention-to-bullying-in-the-workplace

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/08/biden-should-fire-eric-lander-bullying/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/02/07/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-february-7-2022/

https://sports.yahoo.com/white-house-defends-decision-keep-193928143.html

Help for Bullied Workers

Workplace Bullying Training

WBI Research

Expert Witness

Freedom Week

A Needed Law

Workplace Bullying: 24 Examples & Ideas to Support Adults

According to Dr. Gary Namie (2021), workplace bullying is the only form of abuse in the United States that is not yet taboo. Because it is legal, it remains invisible.

The US Workplace Bullying Survey (Namie, 2017) states that 19% of Americans have experienced abusive conduct at work and another 19% have been witnesses. A whopping 63% are aware that bullying in the workplace occurs.

In this article, we define workplace bullying and share approaches on what can be done about it.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Work & Career Coaching Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify opportunities for professional growth and create a more meaningful career.

This Article Contains:

Bullying and harassment in the workplace, 21 examples of bullying at work, how to foster a safe work environment, anti-bullying policies in the workplace, supporting your employees: best guidelines, 3 ideas and activities for adults, training in anti-bullying interventions, 3 best books on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

One thing we know about workplace bullying is that it is eerily similar to school bullying and domestic violence (Kohut, 2008).

Bullying in the workplace is a sublethal and nonphysical form of psychological violence . Namie and Namie (2009) state several criteria must exist for negative behavior to be considered bullying, including a pattern of repeated behavior and health-harming mistreatment of an employee by one or more coworkers that prevents the target from accomplishing work tasks.

Mistreatment can take the form of threatening conduct, including verbal abuse, intimidation, humiliation, or sabotage. Specifically, behaviors might include being ridiculed in front of others, being lied about, continually being left out, and receiving repeated criticism without just cause (Kohut, 2008). These aggressions can leave employees feeling on guard, anxious, intimidated, fearful, powerless, incompetent, and ashamed (Kohut, 2008).

Harassment, on the other hand, violates a target’s civil rights and occurs when the target is a member of a protected status group. In the United States, there are seven protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation (Cotterell, 2018).

According to Namie and Namie (2009, p. 299), illegal harassment is status based, whereas “Bullying cuts across boundaries of status group membership.” In other words, “bullying happens when harassment is same-gender or same-race or when the bully enjoys potential legal protection because he or she is a member of a status-protected group” (Namie & Namie, 2009, p. 299).

Workplace torment is complicated, insidious, and ubiquitous.

Profane, threatening, or disrespectful language or any form of verbal abuse.
Degrading or demeaning remarks that might include insults or name calling.
Harsh criticism in the presence of other employees.
Comments that have a negative effect on work performance.
Behavior that diminishes psychological safety , such as withholding vital job-related information, refusing to answer questions, or refusing to assist when requested.
Routinely making unfavorable or unreasonable assignments.
Retaliation against a whistleblower.
Using position or authority to talk down to or demean another.
Deliberate exclusion of individuals from meetings or activities they should be attending.
Shunning, excluding, marginalizing, or using the silent treatment.
Personal attacks or threatening comments.
Setting someone up to fail.
Not providing important assignment-related information.
Racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, or religious slurs.
Circulating private correspondence (emails, messages, texts) without permission.
Rude nonverbal behaviors and/or gestures (e.g., eye rolling, snickering, finger pointing, staring).
Taking credit for the work of another.
Gossip mongering or rumor spreading.
Interrupting.
Telling personal jokes about a coworker (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
Forms of manipulation (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).

Indicators of being bullied

Namie and Namie (2009) include some signs that the target may be experiencing bullying:

Feeling ill at the start of the work week.
Loved one’s request that they stop obsessing about work.
Favorite activities with friends and family no longer appeal to them.
Days off are spent exhausted and lifeless.
Others in the workplace have been told to stop associating with them.
Constant agitation and anxiety.
Being accused of incompetence, despite an excellent history.
A transfer request mysteriously being denied.

How can we protect employees from uncivil workplace behavior?

17 More Work & Career Coaching Exercises

These 17 Work & Career Coaching Exercises [PDF] contain everything you need to help others find more meaning and satisfaction in their work.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Although the United States is slowly waking up, it lags behind European countries when it comes to addressing workplace bullying (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott, 1999). In this endeavor, Salin et al. (2020) provide ideas for creating a safe work environment.

1. Redesigning the work environment

Reducing role ambiguity and providing opportunities for increased control and latitudinal decision-making can help reduce bullying and manage high-stress jobs. All of these factors have been correlated with workplace bullying (Salin et al., 2020).

2. Institute effective conflict management/resolution systems

Salin et al. (2020) identified interpersonal conflict as one cause of bullying. Developing a system for addressing conflict in relationships and problem-solving in the workplace can lead to a reduction in bullying issues (Salin et al., 2020). Leadership and emotional intelligence training can focus on improving self-awareness and interpersonal skills.

3. Effective leadership

Leadership style has been identified as an important predictor of workplace bullying (Salin et al., 2020).

4. Anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct

Anti-bullying policies should contain a clear statement coming from the top of the organizational chart regarding intolerance for bullying. In addition, the policies should identify what constitutes workplace bullying and the consequences for such behavior (Salin et al., 2020).

5. Raising awareness in the workplace

By raising awareness, organizations demonstrate a workplace culture that won’t tolerate bullying behavior.

Other ideas include addressing the workplace culture and values and developing a positive communication climate.

Kohut (2008) provides ideas for fostering a safe work environment, including:

Zero-tolerance policies against bullying
Encourage confidential communication with management
Annual briefing on signs of workplace bullying
Upper management reviews all complaints carefully and fairly
Employee assistance programs
Conflict resolution training for all employees
Value all employees equally

The good news is that there are resources available to help organizations determined to affect change.

Using Utah Administrative Code r. 477-16 as a framework, Clark and Ritter (2018) outlined criteria to create a healthy academic workplace environment, which can and should be considered for cross-discipline application. Below are portions of their report.

Examples of desired behaviors (management responsibility)

Be respectful and model civility.
Take responsibility and be accountable.
Celebrate and reward civil encounters and initiatives.

Examples of desired behaviors (employee responsibility)

Participate and encourage ongoing civility training.
Practice prevention strategies.
Recognize and report acts of civility.

Example policy procedures

Clearly written, comprehensive, easily accessible workplace bullying policies
Specific step-by-step procedures for addressing bullying
Wording that includes the reporting responsibility of all who witness bullying behaviors

Kohut (2008) offers an example workplace policy, outlined here.

Our organization considers workplace bullying to be unacceptable and intolerable under any circumstance. This behavior degrades, harms, intimidates, offends, or humiliates employees. Bullying results in substantial turnover rates, training costs, and loss of productivity in addition to creating a lawsuit risk.
Our organization adheres to a safe working environment for all employees, free of bullies.
Our organization has/is creating an internal grievance and investigation system to deal with bullying allegations. Reports of bullying are treated seriously and investigated promptly and impartially.
Our organization encourages employees (target or witness) to report incidents immediately. Managers will ensure that reportees are not retaliated against in any way. (Be sure to include contact person’s name and information.)

The Workplace Bullying Institute (n.d.) was first developed in 1997 by Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie and is a bountiful resource for targets of bullies, witnesses, managers, and human resources personnel.

Some of the resources for targeted parties include the first steps to take in this situation, books that can help, coaching, and ideas for creating an action plan.

To fight workplace bullying, the institute offers help for writing policies and procedures, ideas for intervention with bullies, and training for all employees.

Other resources that may be of interest on their website include workplace bullying statistics and current legislation. Interestingly, only Utah and California in the United States have legislation for training mandates (Clark & Ritter, 2018).

This website includes a bevy of resources for stressed workers. What if you happen to work for a stressful boss? This website provides ideas on how to work under these conditions and strategies for interacting with your boss.

This practical workplace bullying guide originating from the Government of South Australia provides information and insight and includes definitions, behaviors, and factors that contribute to workplace bullying.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has published this website of resources to help combat workplace bullying. In it, you can find information on the impact of workplace bullying, organizational factors , working arrangements, and ideas to address bullying.

Exploring past resilience

Resilience in the Workplace aims to strengthen the abilities to negotiate adverse circumstances and bounce back effectively.

This worksheet provides an opportunity to reflect on a past setback and examine the strategies used to overcome it. A series of questions help guide the client to a deeper understanding of their holistic experience.

Self-Care Checkup

During adversity, self-care is crucial for mental wellbeing. When overwhelmed with issues, we can become complacent and even negligent in areas of self-care, which can decrease wellbeing.

This worksheet helps clients identify which domain – emotional, physical, social, professional, or spiritual – is lacking and in need of support.

A Time You Felt Different

This exercise is for all employees and is intended to build empathy.

Workplace bullies are defined by their lack of empathy, making exercises that address and build empathy crucial. The goal of this exercise is to enhance empathy by practicing empathic listening with a coworker.

The exercise begins by mentally preparing to listen to another person. Listeners are asked to quiet the mind, listen beyond words, and set aside judgments to be fully present for the speaker.

There are a variety of training topics that can help reduce workplace bullying. Below are just a few.

Workplace Bullying and Violence: Training for Supervisors and Employees

J.J. Keller & Associates offers courses for every size organization. Their Workplace Bullying and Violence: Training for Supervisors and Employees includes an introductory video. They also provide online training.

Cultural intelligence

David Livermore has been writing and speaking about cultural intelligence for years. Cultural intelligence is an individual’s ability to function across national, ethnic, and organizational cultures. Livermore offers cultural intelligence assessments, online learning, workshops, and certification for course completion.

Cultural intelligence includes relational skills, tolerance of uncertainty, adaptability, empathy, and perceptual acuity – all necessary for an inclusive workplace. Culturally intelligent employees can help coalesce people and groups in the workplace.

Workplace training modules

Neil Katz and Associates have been providing a variety of organizational training topics for many years. Dr. Katz is a prolific writer, trainer, professor, and conflict resolution expert.

He and his team have provided training for an array of organizations, institutions, and community partners. They cover topics such as leadership, communication (conflict resolution) , teamwork , and emotional intelligence – all skills that can help reduce workplace bullying through better interpersonal interactions and intrapersonal insight.

1. The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job – Gary Namie and Ruth Namie

One of the first books I used to learn about workplace bullying was The Bully at Work, written by Gary and Ruth Namie, a husband and wife team passionate about workplace bullying. For years, they have led the march against workplace bullying.

The Bully at Work extols the impact of workplace bullying on the lives, careers, and families of millions of bullying targets. They are the founders of the Workplace Bullying Institute, established in 1997 to fight bullying.

Their book teaches targets, witnesses, administration, and human resources personnel what workplace bullying is, how to deal with bullies, actions people can take, and how targets can make themselves safe.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The Complete Guide to Understanding, Controlling, and Stopping Bullies & Bullying at Work – Margaret Kohut

This comprehensive text by Margaret R. Kohut begins with a definition of workplace bullying along with the scope of the issue, then pivots into Profiles of Workplace Bullies .

To explain this toxic behavior in the workplace, this section of the book breaks workplace bullying down by personality disorders such as the narcissist, the antisocial, the paranoid, and the histrionic.

It is both riveting and helpful, as Kohut describes common character traits of each disorder and what to expect from this personality as a boss, coworker, or subordinate.

The toll and types of workplace bullying are included, along with how to survive and what the law says (or doesn’t say) about it. Readers can find experiential exercises and a special section in the appendix on notoriously bad famous bosses. Spoiler alert: Leona Helmsley is included.

3. Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace – Noa Davenport, Ruth Schwartz, and Gail Pursell Elliott

This book describes mobbing as emotional assault inflicted on one person by a group of coworkers.

In addition to disrespectful and harmful behavior, mobbing often escalates into abusive and terrorizing behaviors. This book is a must-read.

Empathy, assertive communication , and team-building skills benefit all employees.

Working on these skills will allow personnel to have insight into their behavior and the behavior of others. The resources below are recommended to build on these skills.

This worksheet encourages participants to imagine the perspective of someone with whom they are experiencing difficulty or discomfort and to notice their thoughts and feelings in a quiet and controlled environment.

Looking at any situation through multiple perspectives allows insight and empathy. This exercise could benefit bullies, targets, and witnesses.

Stories and narratives have played a crucial role in society since people began speaking. This exercise helps encourage empathy by asking participants to step into the shoes of another to tell their story. Explaining what the subject of the story thought or felt adds an added empathic layer to the narrative.

Assertive communication

This worksheet outlines individual rights while acknowledging the role that others’ rights and opinions play.

The “right to make mistakes,” which acknowledges the human condition of making mistakes regardless of what others think, is particularly interesting.

This worksheet outlines strategies to help understand and use assertive language. Included in the worksheet is empathy, which is crucial to solving escalating conflict.

Team building

This exercise requires participants to build a degree of vulnerability in order to create trust. Trust in the workplace can help strengthen teams and open lines of communication.

This worksheet creates an opportunity for team members to move beyond their comfort zone and become better acquainted with those outside their immediate circle. The goal of this exercise is to build rapport, strengthen teams, and enhance team performance.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others overcome adversity, check out this collection of 17 validated resilience and coping exercises . Use them to help others recover from personal challenges and turn setbacks into opportunities for growth.

Some bullying dynamics have existed in organizations so long that the behaviors have become ingrained as part of the workplace culture. As a result, affected employees are resigned to believing that nothing can be done because the culture is too far gone (Clark & Ritter, 2018).

This is simply not true. Just as we have witnessed deeply troubling sociological issues evolve, workplace bullying, which transcends all demographics, is making strides.

Employees are finding their voice and standing up for their rights. Although the United States lags behind other European countries on this issue (Davenport et al., 1999), creating safe workspaces for all employees is gaining momentum through lawsuits, budding legislation, publicized narratives, and more.

Using the resources provided in this article, each of us can mobilize for safety. Join the movement.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Work & Career Coaching Exercises for free .

Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources , 13 (1), 69–84.
Clark, C. M., & Ritter, K. (2018). Policy to foster civility and support a healthy academic work environment. Journal of Nursing Education , 57 (6), 325–331.
Cotterell, T. (2018). Understanding Title VII: What organizations need to know about employees in protected classes . Forbes.com. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2018/08/22/understanding-title-vii-what-organizations-need-to-know-about-employees-in-protected-classes/?sh=5b720cf53a32
Davenport, N., Schwartz, R. D., & Elliott, G. P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Civil Society.
Kohut, M. R. (2008). The complete guide to understanding, controlling, and stopping bullies and bullying at work . Atlantic.
Namie, G. (2017). 2017 Workplace Bullying Institute U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey [National statistics on workplace bullying]. Workplacebullyinginstitute.org. Retrieved October 2021, from https://workplacebullying.org/download/2017-wbi/?wpdmdl=2024&refresh=619558c1d89731637177537
Namie, G. (2021). Workplace bullying: Introduction by Dr. Gary Namie [YouTube video]. Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1Xx7skPxs
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). The bully at work (2nd ed.). Sourcebooks Inc.
Salin, D., Cowan, R. L., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., … Zedlacher, E. (2020). Prevention of and interventions in workplace bullying: A global study of human resource professionals’ reflections on preferred action. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 31 (20), 2622–2644.
Workplace Bullying Institute. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved December 6, 2021, from https://workplacebullying.org/about-us/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Am learning everyday. As l read the article. It help me a lot to know when act of bullying is used on me by a coworker or by customer. It also give an insight to when is used against me. Bullying is very terrible l don’t Wish to anyone.

Great article. Thank you for many new insights on how to recognize and defuse bullying in the workplace.

Hi, I run a group for dually diagnosed adults with developmental disabilities in an Adult Day Program. I plan to use this article in my vocational skill building group. I look so forward to adapting this content, and have them also look at my company’s policy for bullying. Thank you so much!

Hi Amica Id love more information on tour program. Im based in Australia.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Company Culture: How to Create a Flourishing Workplace

Company culture has become a buzzword, particularly in the post-COVID era, with more organizations recognizing the critical importance of a healthy workplace. During the Great [...]

Integrity in the Workplace (What It Is & Why It’s Important)

Integrity in the workplace matters. In fact, integrity is often viewed as one of the most important and highly sought-after characteristics of both employees and [...]

Neurodiversity in the Workplace: A Strengths-Based Approach

Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace is a priority for ethical employers who want to optimize productivity and leverage the full potential [...]

Download 3 Free Work & Career Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Download 3 Work & Career Exercises Pack (PDF)

Worker Assist (Opens in an external website)
WorkCover Connect (Opens in an external website)
Provider Connect (Opens in an external website)
High risk work assessor portal (Opens in an external website)
High risk work applicant/licencee services (Opens in an external website)
Electrical licensing office course package and online assessment (Opens in an external website)
Organisational systems benchmarking (Opens in an external website)
Workers' Compensation Regulatory Services online services (Opens in an external website)

Bullying allegations unproven against employer

Robertson v State of Queensland [2020] QDC 185

JudgeBarlow QC DCJ

Delivered 6 August 2020

The District Court of Queensland found in favour of an employer accused of badgering, bullying and mobbing (group bullying) an employee in the workplace.

The plaintiff, Ms Robertson, made a claim for damages, alleging she was badgered, bullied or mobbed over a period of time between 2011 and 2012 while working as a nurse at the Gold Coast Hospital (the defendant). The plaintiff alleged that as a result, she suffered a mental injury, namely chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.

The plaintiff alleged that between 2011 and 2012 there were 19 separate incidents and multiple other relevant events which caused her mental injury.

The majority of the alleged incidents involved the plaintiff’s employer – Gold Coast Hospital – having concerns over the plaintiff’s conduct and competence in her nursing role.

The plaintiff alleged that her employer had a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid causing her a mental injury and that her employer breached that duty of care, which caused her injury.

Liability was in dispute.

Judgement/findings

In his judgement, Barlow QC carefully considered each of the 19 plus alleged separate incidents. His Honour highlighted two occasions where it could be said that the plaintiff was bullied by other staff. While the staff members’ conduct was inappropriate, it did not amount to bullying because the two incidents were isolated and separated by a long period of time (16 months).

His Honour stated that the staff “…did not persistently attack or otherwise treat Ms Robertson in a bullying manner. Therefore, they did not badger her. Although they no doubt discussed her frequently over the period concerned, I do not accept that they deliberately combined to harass her. “

This finding meant that the plaintiff had failed in her claim. Barlow QC went on to consider whether, if the plaintiff had been badgered, bullied or mobbed, the defendant owed her and breached the alleged duty of care and if so, whether that breach caused her injury.

Duty of care

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant owed her a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid causing her a mental injury. The plaintiff referenced three alternative occasions on which she alleged this duty of care arose.

One of the alleged occasions was on 19 December 2011 when the then Acting Nurse Unit Manager (NUM) called a meeting with the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the NUM met to accuse her of making a medication error (later found to be untrue). The defendant’s evidence was that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss plaintiff’s medication administration generally, including the medication error allegation, along with the need for her to be on a performance improvement plan. The plaintiff claimed that during the meeting she told the NUM that she was not feeling supported by the other nursing staff which made her feel lonely.

Barlow QC held that at all times from 19 December 2011 onwards the defendant was entitled to review the plaintiff’s work practices to decide whether she was able to competently perform her employment duties. His Honour states that the defendant “…had no duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid such an injury if it were to arise from its reasonable steps in investigating, assessing, educating and, where it considered it necessary, admonishing her where she did not perform her duties properly.” Accordingly, His Honour found that the defendant did not owe the alleged duty of care at any time.

Breach of duty

The plaintiff made several allegations of breach of duty, in particular, alleging that the defendant knew that the plaintiff felt she was being bullied and failed to prevent and protect her from such bullying in the workplace.

Barlow QC held that the defendant did not breach any duty of care it may have owed to the plaintiff, particularly as the plaintiff did not communicate or complain to anyone in the defendant’s employ that she was being bullied.

Barlow QC considered the question of causation. His Honour stated that he was not satisfied “… that her illness was caused by the hospital’s alleged breaches of its alleged duty, rather than by the stresses she underwent at work that were not themselves breaches of duty”.

It was stated that the stressors that the plaintiff experienced in her workplace arose from the deterioration in her relationships with other nursing staff and the performance improvement plan she was placed on. It was these events that caused her injury, not the alleged bullying.

Discussion / implications

This judgment is a timely reminder to employers that:

If an employee suffers mental injury during the course of their employment, this does not automatically mean that the employer owed a duty to the employee to avoid causing a mental injury.
The court will determine whether the risk of injury to the employee was reasonably foreseeable by the employer. If the risk was foreseeable then a duty of care will likely have been owed.
It is not reasonably foreseeable that an employee will suffer a mental injury purely because he/she has been exposed to stressful situations in the workplace. A court will consider what, if any, notice the employee gave the employer to suggest he/she was at risk of suffering a mental injury.

Rate your experience

Workplace bullying: individual hostility, poor work environment or both? Exploring competing explanatory models in a single longitudinal study

Original Article
Published: 22 June 2022
Volume 95 , pages 1955–1969, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6095-5269 1 ,
Brita Bjorkelo 2 ,
Eva Gemzoe Mikkelsen 3 ,
Premilla D’Cruz 4 &
Kamila Madeja-Bien 5

1048 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A central focus of research and literature on workplace bullying is the importance of explanatory factors such as individual dispositions (i.e., the vulnerability hypothesis) and work environment factors (i.e., the work environment hypothesis). Although several studies address the importance of the two approaches, as well as their individual and combined effects, the unique contribution of each of the competing approaches remain unexplored in a single longitudinal study.

Based on Affective Events Theory, we explore the contribution of work environment and individual hostility in the occurrence of workplace bullying over time, using two-wave survey data, collected with a 6-month time lag among 152 employees from 7 private and public workplaces.

Results confirmed that work environment factors predicted later exposure to bullying. Exposure to workplace bullying at T1 was also related to a poor work environment at T2. Results further showed that higher exposure to workplace bullying at T1 and T2 was related to higher levels of almost all aspects of individual hostility over time. Moreover, poor working conditions especially in T1 predicted individual hostility at T2.

The present study thus documents that a poor work environment fosters bullying, and when bullying exists in a workplace, this elicits interpersonal hostility. Results points to the importance of addressing, through research and practice, work environment factors as predictors of workplace bullying.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

Filling a Theoretical “Black Box” Between Workplace Bullying and Poor Attitudes: Psychological Contract Violation, Work Injustice, and Negative Environmental Contagion

Aasland MS, Skogstad A, Notelaers G, Nielsen MB, Einarsen S (2010) The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. Br J Manag 21(2):438–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x

Article Google Scholar

Ågotnes KW, Einarsen SV, Hetland J, Skogstad A (2018) The moderating effect of laissez-faire leadership on the relationship between co-worker conflicts and new cases of workplace bullying: a true prospective design. Hum Resour Manag J 28(4):555–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12200

Baillien E, Neyens I, De Witte H, De Cuyper N (2009) A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: towards a three way model. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 19:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.977

Baillien E, De Cuyper N, De Witte H (2011) Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: a two-wave test of Karasek’s job demand control model for targets and perpetrators. J Occup Organ Psychol 84:191–208. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X508371

Baillien E, Escartín J, Gross C, Zapf D (2017) Towards a conceptual and empirical differentiation between workplace bullying and interpersonal conflict. Eur J Work Organ Psy 26(6):870–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1385601

Balducci C, Cecchin M, Fraccaroli F (2012) The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: a longitudinal analysis. Work Stress 26:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543

Balducci C, Conway PM, van Heugten K (2021) The contribution of organizational factors to workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Pathways of job-related negative behavior. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, 2nd edn. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0935-9_1

Chapter Google Scholar

Barefoot JC, Boyle SH (2009) Hostility and proneness to anger. Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. Guilford Press, New York, pp 210–226

Google Scholar

Barefoot JC, Beckham JC, Haney TL, Segler IC, Lipcus IM (1993) Age differences in hostility among middle-aged and older adults. Psychol Aging 8:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.8.1.3

Article CAS Google Scholar

Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y (2003) Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J Appl Psychol 88(2):207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Baumeister RF, DeWall CN (2005) The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. The social outcast: ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Psychology Press, London

Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol 5(4):323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Bleidorn W, Kandler C, Riemann R, Angleitner A, Spinath FM (2012) Genetic and environmental influences on personality profile stability: unraveling the normativeness problem. J Pers 80(4):1029–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00758.x

Blomme RJ, Kodden B, Beasley-Suffolk A (2015) Leadership theories and the concept of work engagement: creating a conceptual framework for management implications and research. J Manag Organ 21(2):125–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.71

Bowling NA, Beehr TA (2006) Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 91(5):998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

Bowling NA, Beehr TA, Bennett MM, Watson CP (2010) Target personality and workplace victimization: a prospective analysis. Work Stress 24(2):140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.489635

Branch S, Ramsay S, Barker M (2013) Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: a review. Int J Manag Rev 15(3):280–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x

Branch S, Shallcross L, Barker M, Ramsay S, Murray JP (2021) Theoretical frameworks that have explained workplace bullying: retracing contributions across the decades. Concepts, approaches and method, handbooks of workplace bullying emotional abuse and harassment, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0134-6_4

Buss AH (1961) The psychology of aggression. Wiley, NY

Book Google Scholar

Buss AH, Durkee A (1957) An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. J Consult Psychol 21(4):343–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046900

Buss AH, Perry M (1992) The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Chambers CN, Frampton CM, McKee M, Barclay M (2018) ‘It feels like being trapped in an abusive relationship’: bullying prevalence and consequences in the New Zealand senior medical workforce: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020158

Conway PM, Høgh A, Balducci C, Ebbesen DK (2021) Workplace bullying and mental health. Pathways of job-related negative behaviour. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0935-9_5

Cowan RL, Toth A (2021) Qualitative research methods in the study of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Concepts, approaches and methods. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0134-6_16

Coyne I, Seigne E, Randall PP (2000) Predicting workplace victim status from personality. Eur J Work Organ Psy 9(3):335–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943200417957

D’Cruz P (2015) Depersonalized bullying at work: From evidence to conceptualization. Springer, Berlin

D’Cruz P, Noronha E (2010) The exit coping response to workplace bullying: the contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Empl Relat 32(2):102–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451011010078

D’Cruz P, Noronha E (2014) Workplace bullying in the context of organizational change: the significance of pluralism. Ind Relat J 45(1):2–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12039

D’Cruz P, Noronha E (2018) Abuse on online labour markets: targets’ coping, power and control. Qual Res Organ Manag 13(1):53–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-10-2016-1426

D’Cruz P, Noronha E (2021) Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field. Concepts, approaches and methods. Handbooks of workplace bullying emotional abuse and harassment, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0134-6_1

D’Cruz P, Noronha E, Beale D (2014) The workplace bullying-organizational change interface: emerging challenges for human resource management. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(10):1434–1459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870314

D’Cruz P, Noronha E, Caponecchia C, Escartín J, Salin D, Tuckey MR (2021) Dignity and inclusion at work. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0218-3

DeWall CN, Enjaian B, Bell SB (2017) Only and lonely: The curious case of exclusion and aggression. Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection. Routledge, London, pp 95–112. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315308470

Dinh JE, Lord RG, Gardner WL, Meuser JD, Liden RC, Hu J (2014) Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: current theoretical trends and changing the perspectives. Leadersh Quart 25(1):36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

Einarsen S (2000) Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress Violent Beh 5(4):379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3

Einarsen S, Hoel H, Notelaers G (2009) Measuring exposure to bullying and harrasment at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work Stress 23(1):24–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370902815673

Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (2011) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: developments in theory, research and practice, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, London

Einarsen S, Skogstad A, Rørvik E, Lande ÅB, Nielsen MB (2016) Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis. Int J Hum Res Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

Einarsen K, Mykletun RJ, Einarsen SV, Skogstad A, Salin D (2017) Ethical infrastructure and successful handling of workplace bullying. Nord J Work Life Stud. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v7i1.81398

Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (2020) The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Florida, pp 3–53

Francioli L, Conway PM, Hansen ÅM, Holten A-L, Grynderup MB, Persson R, Mikkelsen EG, Costa G, Høgh A (2018) Quality of leadership and workplace bullying: the mediating role of social community at work in a two-year follow-up study. J Bus Ethics 147(4):889–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2996-3

Gamian-Wilk M (2013) Does bullying increase compliance? Soc Influ 8(2–3):131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.756429

Gamian-Wilk M, Bjørkelo B (2019) The role of personality in the form of temperament in relation to bullying at work. Pol Psychol Bull 50(3):237–246

Gamian-Wilk M, Madeja-Bien K (2021) Ostracism in the Workplace. Special topics and particular occupations, professions and sectors. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_2-1

Gamian-Wilk M, Lewandowska M, Sędkowska D, Staniszewska A, Stapinski P, Zielony-Koryczan E, Madeja-Bien K (2022) A prospective study of employee response to bullying in a workplace environment: does assertiveness actually help or hurt? Violence Vict. https://doi.org/10.1891/VV-D-20-00081

Glasø L, Einarsen S (2008) Emotion regulation in leader-follower relationship. Eur J Work Organ Psy 17(4):482–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320801994960

Hansen ÅM, Garde AH, Nabe-Nielsen K, Grynderup MB, Høgh A (2021) Health consequences of workplace bullying: Physiological responses and sleep as pathways to disease. Pathways of job-related negative behaviour , Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0935-9_1

Hauge LJ, Einarsen S, Knardahl S, Lau B, Notelaers G, Skogstad A (2011) Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. Int J Stress Manag 18(4):305–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025396

Hoel H, Cooper CL, Einarsen SV (2020) Organizational effects of workplace bullying. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. CRC Press, Florida, pp 209–234

Hogh A, Conway PM, Mikkelsen EG (2017) Prevalence and risk factors for workplace bullying. The Wiley handbook of violence and aggression societal interventions, 3rd edn. Wiley, London

Holten AL, Hancock GR, Mikkelsen EG, Persson R, Hansen ÅM, Høgh A (2017) The longitudinal effects of organizational change on experienced and enacted bullying behaviour. J Chang Manag 17(1):67–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1215340

Kant L, Skogstad A, Torsheim T, Einarsen SV (2013) Beware the angry leader: trait-anger and trait-anxiety as predictors of petty tyranny. Leadersh Q 24(1):106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.005

Karatuna I (2015) Targets’ coping with workplace bullying: a qualitative study. Qual Res Organ Manag 10(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-09-2013-1176

Kleshinski C, Wilson K, Stevenson-Street J, Scott B (2021) Principled leader behaviors: an integrative framework and extension of why leaders are fair, ethical, and non-abusive. Acad Manag Ann 15(1):1–36. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0029

Kline RB (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press

Lange AH, Witte H, Notelaers G (2008) Should I stay or should I go? Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers versus movers. Work Stress 22(3):201–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802390132

Leary M, Twenge J, Quinlivan E (2006) Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(2):111–132. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_2

Leymann H (1996) The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur J Work Organ Psy 5(2):165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853

Lind K, Glasø L, Pallesen S, Einarsen S (2009) Personality profiles among targets and nontargets of workplace bullying. Eur Psychol 14(3):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.3.231

Löckenhoff CE, Terracciano A, Patriciu NS, Eaton WW, Costa PT Jr (2009) Self-reported extremely adverse life events and longitudinal changes in five-factor model personality traits in an urban sample. J Trauma Stress 22:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20385

Lutgen-Sandvik P (2006) Take This Job and …: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Commun Monogr 73(4):406–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750601024156

Maner JK, DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Schaller M (2007) Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.” J Pers Soc Psychol 92:42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42

Matthiesen SB, Aasen E, Holst G, Wie K, Einarsen S (2003) The escalation of conflict: a case study of bullying at work. Int J Manag Decis Mak 4(1):96–112

McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol 52:509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509

Mikkelsen EG, Hansen ÅM, Persson R, Fosgrau M, Høgh A (2020) Individual consequences of being exposed to workplace bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Theory, research and practice, 3rd edn. CRC Press. Taylor and Francis Group, Florida, pp 163–208. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429462528

Nielsen MB, Einarsen SV (2018) What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: an overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggress Violent Beh 42:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007

Nielsen MB, Knardahl S (2015) Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study. Work Stress 29(2):128–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1032383

Nielsen MB, Notelaers G, Einarsen S (2011) Measuring exposure to workplace bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Florida, pp 149–174

Nielsen MB, Emberland JS, Knardahl S (2017a) Workplace bullying as a predictor of disability retirement: a prospective registry study of Norwegian employees. J Occup Environ Med 59(7):609–614. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001026

Nielsen MB, Glasø L, Einarsen S (2017b) Exposure to workplace harassment and the five factor model of personality: a meta-analysis. Personality Individ Differ 104:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.015

Nielsen MB, Gjerstad J, Jacobsen DP, Einarsen SV (2017c) Does ability to defend moderate the association between exposure to bullying and symptoms of anxiety? Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01953

Nielsen MB, Christensen JO, Finne LB, Knardahl S (2020) Workplace bullying, mental distress, and sickness absence: the protective role of social support. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 93:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01463-y

Notelaers G, Van der Heijden BI (2021) Construct validity in workplace bullying and harassment research. Concepts, approaches and methods, handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 369–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5334-4_11-1

O’Donnell S, MacIntosh J, Wuest J (2010) A theoretical understanding of sickness absence among women who have experienced workplace bullying. Qual Health Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310361242

Orth U, Wieland E (2006) Anger, hostility, and posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults: a meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 74(4):698–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.698

Pallesen S, Nielsen MB, Magerøy N, Andreassen CS, Einarsen S (2017) An experimental study on the attribution of personality traits to bullies and targets in a workplace setting. Front Psychol 8:1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01045

Pauksztat B, Salin D, Kitada M (2022) Bullying behvior and employee wellbeing: how do different forms of social support buffer against depression, anxiety, and exhaustion? Int Arch Occup Environ Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-022-01844-w

Persson R, Høgh A, Grynderup MB, Willert MV, Gullander M, Hansen ÅM, Kolstad HA, Mors O, Mikkelsen EG, Kristensen AS, Kaerlev L, Rugulies R, Bonde JP (2016) Relationship between changes in workplace bullying status and the reporting of personality characteristics. J Occup Environ Med 58(9):902–910. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000822

Persson R, Mikkelsen EG, Høgh A (2021) The role of personality in workplace bullying research. Pathways of Job-related Negative Behaviour , Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment , 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5334-4_11-1

Podsiadly A, Gamian-Wilk M (2017) Personality traits as predictors or outcomes of being exposed to bullying at workplace. Personality Individ Differ 115:43–49. https://doi.org/10.2016/j.paid.2016.08.001

Rayner C (1997) The incidence of workplace bullying. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 7(3):199–208

Reber AS (1995) The Penguin dictionary of psychology, 2nd edn. Penguin, Harmondsworth

Reknes I, Einarsen S, Knardahl S, Lau B (2014) The prospective relationship between role stressors and new cases of self-reported workplace bullying. Scand J Psychol 55:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12092

Reknes I, Notelaers G, Iliescu D, Einarsen SV (2021) The influence of target personality in the development of workplace bullying. J Occup Health Psychol 26(4):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000272

Roberts BW, Wood D, Smith JL (2005) Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. J Res Pers 39:166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002

Roszkowska A, Kucharewicz J (2007) Zachowania agresywne dziewcząt i chłopców popełniających czyny karalne w świetle badań Skalą Agresji Bussa-Durkee (1961). Chowanna 1:25–38

Salin D (2003) Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations 56(10):1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610003

Salin D, Hoel H (2011) Organizational causes of workplace bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: developments in theory, research and practice, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 227–243

Samnani AK (2021) The role and impact of leaders on workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Pathways of job-related negative behaviour , handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment , 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 361–383

Shallcross L, Ramsay S, Barker M (2013) Severe workplace conflict: the experience of mobbing. Negot Confl Manage Res 6(3):191–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12011

Skogstad A, Torsheim T, Einarsen S, Hauge LJ (2011) Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Appl Psychol Int Rev 60(3):475–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00444.x

Skogstad A, Aasland MS, Nielsen MB, Hetland J, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S (2014) The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/j Psychol 222(4):221–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000189

Smart-Richman L, Leary MR (2009) Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: a multimotive model. Psychol Rev 116(2):365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250

Smith TW, Glazer K, Ruiz JM, Gallo LC (2004) Hostility, anger, aggressiveness, and coronary heart disease: an interpersonal perspective on personality, emotion, and health. J Pers 72(6):1217–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00296.x

Specht J, Egloff B, Schmukle SC (2011) Stability and change of personality across the life course: the impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. J Pers Soc Psychol 101:862–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950

Sperry L (2018) Organizational risk factors: An integrative model for understanding, treating, and preventing mobbing and bullying in the workplace. Workplace bullying and mobbing in the United States, 1st edn. Praeger, London, pp 75–97

Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J (2003) Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change? J Pers Soc Psychol 84(5):1041–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041

Tong M, Schwendimann R, Zúñiga F (2017) Mobbing among care workers in nursing homes: a cross-sectional secondary analysis of the swiss nursing homes human resources project. Int J Nurs Stud 66:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.12.005

Twenge JM (2005) When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of situations, narcissism, emotions, and replenishing connections. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Psychology Press, London, pp 19–34

Warszewska-Makuch M (2007) Mobbing w pracy—przyczyny i konsekwencje. Bezpieczeństwo Pracy 3:5–7

Wegge J, van Dick R, Fisher GK, Wecking C, Moltzen K (2006) Work motivation, organizational identification, and well-being in call centre work. Work Stress 20(1):60–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600655553

Weiss HM, Cropanzano R (1996) Affective events theory. Res Organ Behav 18(1):1–74

Williams KD, Nida SA (2017) Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315308470

Zapf D, Gross C (2001) Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. Eur J Work Organ Psy 10(4):497–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000834

Zapf D, Dorman C, Frese M (1996) Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: a review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. J Occup Health Psychol 1(2):145–169. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.1.2.145

Zapf D, Escartin J, Scheppa-Lahyani M, Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Vartia M (2020) Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. Bullying and harassment in the workplace. CRC Press, Florida, pp 105–162

Zuckerman M (1991) Psychobiology of Personality. Cambridge University Press, London

Download references

This work was funded by MNiSZW to Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk with Grant number SUB/IPsy/2019/10.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Psychology Faculty in Wroclaw Social Behavior Research Center, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland

Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk

Norwegian Police College University, Oslo New University College, Oslo, Norway

Brita Bjorkelo

Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Eva Gemzoe Mikkelsen

Organizational Behaviour Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India

Premilla D’Cruz

Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland

Kamila Madeja-Bien

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The article presents secondary analyses of data previously reported in a book written in Polish (Gamian-Wilk, M. (2018). Mobbing w miejscu pracy: uwarunkowania i konsekwencje bycia poddawanym mobbingowi . Warszawa: PWN. ISBN: 978-83-01-20106-7). The book was a part of the habilitation process, and the data have not previously been published in any other journal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gamian-Wilk, M., Bjorkelo, B., Mikkelsen, E.G. et al. Workplace bullying: individual hostility, poor work environment or both? Exploring competing explanatory models in a single longitudinal study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 95 , 1955–1969 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-022-01896-y

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2022

Accepted : 27 May 2022

Published : 22 June 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-022-01896-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Workplace bullying
Work environment
Vulnerability
Longitudinal study
Reverse causal effects
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

A recent bullying case highlights the dangers of a hands-off HR department

A recent case in the Fair Work Commission, Ms Anne Pilbrow [2020] FWC 2458 (26 May 2020) , has revisited the scenario where there is a need to identify what is reasonable management action (even if imperfectly carried out) and what is bullying, as defined in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The case also demonstrates that where there are failures by an HR department that are very substantial, these can place the organisation at substantial risk.

Ms Pilbrow was a nurse returning to work following an injury to her finger. On her return, she alleged her direct manager, Nurse Manager, Ms Edmondson, had subjected her to bullying behaviour, and Ms Pilbrow applied for a stop-bullying order in the Commission.

The applicant alleged that a number of behaviours by Ms Edmondson amounted to bullying, including two occasions of alleged verbal ‘berating’, and unreasonable enquiries about her time sheets.

Ms Pilbrow also alleged that HR staff failed to respond adequately to her complaints about Ms Edmondson’s behaviour, which she characterised as bullying.

What is reasonable management action and what is bullying?

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) defines bullying as ‘repeated unreasonable behaviour by an individual, or a group of individuals, towards a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety’ .

The definition of bullying however specifically excludes ‘reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner’ .

The Commission’s definition of this exemption is now reasonably settled, with the comments of Commissioner Hampton in Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104 , and Hatcher VP in Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland and Others [2015] FWC 774 now applied in a number of cases [See Ms Susan Purcell v Ms Mary Farah and Mercy Education Ltd T/A St Aloysius College [2016] FWC 2308 .]

In Amie Mac , VP Hatcher stated that for management action to be unreasonable it must be proven to have “lacked any evident and intelligible justification such that it would be considered by a reasonable person to be unreasonable in all the circumstances.”

The decision

In Ms Anne Pilbrow , Commissioner Susan Booth followed these principles in finding that the alleged behaviour by the Nurse Manager did not amount to bullying, in that the behaviours, while not ideal in their execution, were in each case ‘reasonable management action’, including the management of valid performance concerns. While she found the Nurse Manager had expressed herself in a less than ideal way and her conduct and communication could have been done better, her conduct did not amount to bullying as defined by s789FD of the Act.

Discussing both of the alleged examples of ‘verbal berating’ in turn, the Commissioner found that even though the delivery may have been imperfect, the underlying reason in each case was logical and necessary. For example: “Objectively considered, requiring timely breaks was a reasonable request in the context of a busy radiology practice…” .

In relation to the allegation that Ms Pilbrow was berated in a one on one meeting, the Commissioner concluded on balance that, while the performance meeting “was clearly not best practice” and “what was said could have been better put” the key issue was that “it raised performance issues that were appropriate to be raised in the circumstances.”

The Commissioner concluded that, citing the principles set out in in Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited and Others [2015] FWC 774 : “The task of this Commission is to objectively assess what happened, and whether it was done reasonably, not whether it could have been done more reasonably or differently.”

Strong criticism of HR

However, Commissioner Booth was extremely critical of the failures of the HR department to oversee Ms Pilbrow’s return to work, which she said had “potentially reached the required level of unreasonableness” according to the definition of bullying in the Act. The Commissioner’s comments indicate that, if Ms Pilbrow had made a bullying claim against any specific individuals within HR, it may have been successful. It was only the fact that a bullying order can only be made against ‘an individual or group of individuals’, not an organisation’s HR department, that saved the HR department in this case.

Ms Edmondson had referred Ms Pilbrow’s concerns to HR, and the Commissioner noted that on the evidence, it was in fact HR, rather than Ms Edmondson, who had failed Ms Pilbrow in relation to the following oversights:

refusal to assign light duties to her consistent with her medical requirements,
lack of consultation about allocation of duties at an alternative work location, including being given 30 minutes notice to attend the new workplace,
poor responses to her concerns about changes to her work location and duties, and
limited training opportunities.

In these circumstances, HR should have:

activated an injury management plan to ensure Ms Pilbrow’s duties were consistent with her medical requirements, including allocating light duties,
consulted and provided support to Ms Pilbrow through the change in her work location,
provided reasons for any changes to her work arrangements and responded to her concerns quickly, and
responded quickly to her complaint about alleged bullying.

Lessons from the decision

1.In assessing whether management actions are unreasonable, managers are not expected to be perfect. As long as there is a logical reason or need for the decision or action from an organisational point of view, imperfection in tone or behaviour will not, unless it is serious or deliberate, normally amount to bullying.

2. HR departments must be proactive in ensuring that employees are not exposed to unreasonable behaviour or a risk to their mental health, particularly in situations where it is not ‘business as usual’, such as an employee’s return from injury. Failure to do so not only places the organisation at risk of liability for bullying (as well as potential workers’ compensation claims), but also risks individuals within HR being the target of a bullying claim, even where the alleged unreasonable behaviours are ‘sins of omission’ rather than commission.

Bullying Webinar

Register now for our free lunchtime webinar on June 16 by Director Jason Clark, “Key take-aways for employers from the latest bullying cases” . Jason will provide an update on the most recent bullying cases and explain what the findings of each case mean for employers.

About Jason Clark

Jason Clark is a Worklogic Director. Jason has extensive experience as a workplace investigator, investigating a range of issues including fraud, bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. He has also assisted numerous organisations develop strategies to minimise poor behaviour and encourage a positive workplace culture.

Worklogic Sydney

Telephone: (02) 8413 0384 Address: Level 21, 60 Margaret St Sydney NSW 2000

Worklogic Melbourne

Telephone: (03) 9981 6500 Address: Level 19, 15 William St, Melbourne, VIC 3000

1800 952 947

[email protected]

For event invites and compelling insights into resolving workplace conflict and building a positive culture at work!

Integrity Line

COMMENTS

True Stories of Workplace Bullying: Case Examples to Help You
Real Workplace Bullying Case Examples Microsoft to Pay $2 Million in Workplace Bullying Case. AUSTIN, TX - After seven years, Michael Mercieca finally saw the courts order Microsoft to pay for workplace bullying that almost led him to the breaking point. The Texas employment labor law case judge, Tim Sulak, found Microsoft guilty of "acting with malice and reckless indifference" in an ...
Bullying case studies
Bullying case studies. The following case studies provide examples of workplace bullying, its impact on an individual's health and safety and examples of how employers failed to control the risk. Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed at an employee or group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety.
Devils You Know
Field lists a further litany of negative health outcomes among those who are bullied. "Two thirds put on weight, that's pretty standard. A third would lose hair, a third to a half would have ...
Workplace bullying as an organizational problem: Spotlight on people
In Study 1, we carry out a content analysis of 342 official case records of workplace bullying complaints lodged with a state work health and safety regulatory body and discover that the risk contexts for bullying relate to people management. In Study 2, through a sequence of stages, we develop a BARS to measure the people management practices ...
How Bullying Manifests at Work
Summary. The term workplace bullying describes a wide range of behaviors, and this complexity makes addressing it difficult and often ineffective. For example, most anti-bullying advice, from ...
PDF Workplace Bullying as an Organizational Problem: Spotlight on People
bullying occurs within organizations; these "risk contexts" (cf. Lazzerini & Pistolesi, 2013) are indicative of "systemic errors in the way the organization functions" (Akerboom & Maes, 2006, p. 23) that, in this case, foster bullying. We discover inductively in Study 1 that bullying manifests in organizational contexts related
Eric Lander
Eric Lander - A Workplace Bullying Case Study. Making of a science guru …. Eric Lander was a Brooklyn-born math whiz kid. At 17, he won a science talent search contest. He graduated from Princeton with a BA in Mathematics. Earning a Rhodes scholarship, his PhD from Oxford was in mathematics. While teaching economics at Harvard Business ...
Persisting Menace: A Case-Based Study of Remote Workplace Bullying in
The method adopted for this study is qualitative research with an exploratory approach. The flexibility afforded by this method helped in developing an understanding of the phenomenon under study (Ponelis, 2015).This method allowed the author to find answers to the questions involving the causes of workplace bullying in a remote work environment, how this has developed, and why it exists.
Bullying and poor workplace cultures: Case studies
Bullying and poor workplace cultures: Case studies. These demonstrate that while workplace bullying can come in many different forms, there are a number of common approaches that have been successfully employed to help turn the tide on bullying. These demonstrate that while workplace bullying can come in many different forms, there are a number ...
PDF Turning the Tide on Bullying and Poor Workplace Cultures
By 2016, this figure had plummeted from 20 per cent to 7 per cent. This case study tells the story of how not dealing with bullying early can lead to severe consequences for an organisation. However it also tells us how taking strong action against bullying is a critical start to mending poor workplace cultures.
Workplace Bullying: 24 Examples & Ideas to Support Adults
Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. One thing we know about workplace bullying is that it is eerily similar to school bullying and domestic violence (Kohut, 2008).. Bullying in the workplace is a sublethal and nonphysical form of psychological violence.Namie and Namie (2009) state several criteria must exist for negative behavior to be considered bullying, including a pattern of repeated ...
Bullying allegations unproven against employer
Background. The District Court of Queensland found in favour of an employer accused of badgering, bullying and mobbing (group bullying) an employee in the workplace. The plaintiff, Ms Robertson, made a claim for damages, alleging she was badgered, bullied or mobbed over a period of time between 2011 and 2012 while working as a nurse at the Gold ...
Bullying in the Workplace
Bullying in the Workplace - A Case Study. When Susan* began working at her new job, it wasn't long before she realised that something wasn't right between her and her manager. What began as feeling a bit picked on began to become a constant source of stress for her, until she knew it wasn't in her head anymore.
Workplace bullying: individual hostility, poor work ...
While it is possible that future studies may find individual dispositions such as hostility to predict exposure to workplace bullying, in this case for example by increasing the risk of perceiving ... Holst G, Wie K, Einarsen S (2003) The escalation of conflict: a case study of bullying at work. Int J Manag Decis Mak 4(1):96-112. Google ...
A tale of two trusts: case study analysis of bullying and negative
ABSTRACT. This article analyses the risk to workplace experiences for staff in the UK ambulance service. Adopting a case study methodology following interviews with front-line and management employees, the authors investigated two UK NHS ambulance trusts, Blue Light (N = 1100) and Green Cross (N = 2093) and found that efficiency targets—whether time or 'dashboard', increased job demands ...
Nurses' Workplace Bullying Experiences, Responses, and Ways of Coping
This study aims to analyze the relationship between nurses' workplace bullying experiences, responses, and ways of coping. We studied 113 nurses working in hospitals, analyzed the data using SPSS 25.0. We found that the more positive use of the positive viewpoint, the lower the bullying reaction in the workplace (r = −0.268, p = 0.004).
PDF Workplace Bullying: Case Study of Public Sector University
Workplace Bullying: A case of Public Sector organizations 176 GMR Vol. 5, No. 2, 2020 ... examined empirical and theoretical studies on workplace bullying and developed different types of bullying. First type of bullying defined was person-related bullying, under this type, the perpetrator attacks personally, by gossiping or ... role in the ...
Persisting Menace: A Case-Based Study of Remote Workplace Bullying in
The case study approach is appropriate for this paper as it allows the researcher to identify and understand the reasons for the existence of bullying in remote environments using probing and in-depth interviews. The paper used a case study approach to identify the nature and causes of workplace bullying.
Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace
A qualitative case study to compare two anti‐bullying initiatives (organisation/employer level); one in the public and one in the private sector in the United Kingdom (UK).They highlighted the complexity of bullying in the workplace and called for a more grounded approach to engage with the specific workforce. Not a control study. Bortoluzzi 2014
Workplace bullying
In March of 2017, after 25 years of continuous service, Vivian Leggett terminated her employment from the Hawkesbury Racing Club due to the relentless bullying and harassment she experienced at the hands of its then-new CEO, Greg Rudolph. Leggett was a sponsorship and marketing manager who had worked at the Club continuously since the early ...
A Case Study with an Identified Bully: Policy and Practice Implications
INTRODUCTION. Bullying is one of the most significant school problems experienced by children and adolescents and affects approximately 30% of students in U.S. public schools. 1 This included 13% as bullies, 10.6% as victims and 6.3% as bully-victims. 2 Bullying has been defined as repeated exposure to negative events within the context of an ...
A recent bullying case highlights the dangers of a hands-off HR
A recent case in the Fair Work Commission, Ms Anne Pilbrow [2020] FWC 2458 (26 May 2020), has revisited the scenario where there is a need to identify what is reasonable management action (even if imperfectly carried out) and what is bullying, as defined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The case also demonstrates that where there are failures by an HR department that are very substantial, these can ...