case study bullying in the workplace

• 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.

Related pages

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.

• Jennifer Kramer
• Brandon Ruiz
• Shoshee Hui
• Dat T. Phan
• Courtney Luengo
• Wendy Camacho
• 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 in California: Case Examples to Help You Understand Your Rights (2024)

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.

Recent Posts

Schedule a free case evaluation.

Fields Marked With An * Are Required

Do you agree to receive text messages from Hennig Kramer LLP?

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

Copyright © 2024 Hennig Kramer LLP. All rights reserved.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• 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

About a third of employees have faced bullying at work – here’s how to recognize and deal with it

Program Director & Associate Professor of Industrial-Organizational and Applied Psychology, Adler University

Assistant Professor of Social Work, University of Nebraska Omaha

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Nebraska Omaha and Adler University provide funding as members of The Conversation US.

Adler University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

Adler University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

The phenomenon of bullying, harassment and sexual abuse in workplaces throughout North America is widespread and harmful to both individuals and organizations. In fact, bullying at work affects up to 30% of workers over time .

As practitioners and researchers who study workplace violence, including bullying, harassment and sexual abuse, we define workplace bullying as harmful acts of mistreatment between people that go beyond incivility and cross the line to intentionally causing harm.

Bullying behaviors range from verbally insulting or socially excluding someone to sabotaging the victim’s work, inflicting psychological terror and engaging in sexual abuse or physical aggression. Manipulation and provocation also play a role in bullying dynamics, and cyberbullying has emerged as a new form of workplace harassment. Research suggests the impacts of workplace bullying affect employee health and safety and the workplace overall .

In a grocery store line, if someone invades your space, shoves you aside or threatens physical harm, the police may intervene, potentially resulting in an arrest. However, in the workplace, incidents involving bullying, assault, sexual abuse or other forms of violence are typically addressed through internal investigations. Our research suggests that treating workplace bullying as a matter of public health rather than employment law is necessary to protect those being targeted.

Workplace bullying results in real harms

Targets of workplace bullying often experience serious repercussions , including stress and burnout, along with other diagnosed mental health issues and, in extreme cases, suicide.

Bullying can affect physical health , with symptoms including sleep disturbances, cardiovascular diseases, body aches and pain, loss of appetite and headaches. Targets often describe an inability to concentrate ; since they’re spending time worrying about what is going to happen to them next, job performance suffers. The negative impacts can spill over to a target’s personal life and affect their relationships with family and friends.

It’s not unusual for targeted workers to feel uncomfortable coming forward and talking about their experiences. But suffering in silence can lead to an even more toxic climate at work that can undermine your victims’ sense of security, with long-term consequences for their well-being.

Personality traits of bullies and their targets

Workplace bullies often target those who possess qualities highly valued by employers : self-sufficiency, cautiousness and innovativeness. Those targeted typically are motivated, have a kind perspective and prefer to avoid getting involved in office politics or engaging in competitive behavior. They take charge of their work and responsibilities.

Bullying often involves an imbalance of power , where the perpetrator acts to obtain power and control over the target.

Researchers find that bullies tend to have low self-esteem, problems with anger management and even personality disorders. Bullies often target people based on their appearance, behavior, race, religion, educational background, LGBTQ+ identity or because of perceived threats to their own career.

There’s no hard-and-fast profile, but males tend to exhibit more of the traits associated with bullying. Those who possess tendencies toward what psychologists call dark triad traits – Machiavellianism , subclinical psychopathy and subclinical narcissism – often gravitate toward jobs that offer high levels of freedom and hierarchical structures.

Are you being bullied?

Have you noticed a decline in your emotional or physical health ? Is your job performance being affected? Feeling constantly stressed, anxious or demoralized are signs that something isn’t right.

Think about whether you feel singled out. Do you sense that you’re being isolated because of how others treat you?

If you do conclude you’re being bullied, your first priority is keeping yourself safe . Defending yourself against workplace bullying takes courage, but there are steps you can take to diffuse, distance and document what is happening to you.

In the moment when bullying is occurring, focus on trying to keep your emotions in check and avoid being reactive. For example, try to gain some psychological distance in an emotionally charged situation – politely walk away, don’t engage, give yourself time to settle your emotions. Taking space by stepping away can disrupt the immediate intensity of the situation. It helps you stay in control rather than allowing a bully to force you to respond impulsively in the moment, which can lead you to say or do something you’ll regret.

Try your best to de-escalate the situation. Some tips for how to stop an interaction from spiraling include:

• Using polite, firm language to ask the bully to stop the conversation.
• Asking the bully to leave.
• Removing yourself from the situation if the bully won’t go.
• Informing your supervisor immediately.

If you feel threatened, calmly and politely stop the interaction by removing yourself in a nonthreatening way . As challenging as it can be, the key here is to stay composed and remain respectful.

How to respond to an ongoing situation

It may be helpful to engage in some advanced planning with a friend or colleague. Rehearse a bullying situation and practice how you would respond to help you get comfortable using emotional distancing and de-escalation . Advance practice can help you handle an emotionally charged encounter.

Seek the support and safety of your peers . They can talk things through with you and become your allies if they are asked to describe or even testify about a bullying incident they witnessed.

Strive for an attitude of strength and confidence in yourself. Workplace bullies often choose to attack people they peg as easy targets. Present a strong front, trust in yourself and have confidence in your work – these attributes may make you less likely to be targeted .

Document your experiences when you perceive there is a problem. Be objective: Note the time and date, what happened, who was present, what was said and how it made you feel. Keeping a record helps quantify what is happening. Your organization should have policies and procedures to support you if you believe you are being bullied at work.

A caveat, though: Keep in mind, human resources departments are often ill-equipped to manage these issues, and complaints may be mishandled , improperly dismissed or simply ignored. Sometimes, if you’re able, it is better to look for a new job.

In order to effectively tackle the problem of workplace bullying and harassment, it is important for both employees and organizations to acknowledge and actively address these concerns. By establishing policies against bullying and fostering open lines of communication, workplaces can create safer spaces that enhance the well-being and productivity of their employees.

• Workplace bullying
• Workplace violence
• Harassment at work

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

Head of Research Computing & Data Solutions

Community member RANZCO Education Committee (Volunteer)

Director of STEM

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Innov Clin Neurosci

Workplace Bullying: A Tale of Adverse Consequences

Workplace bullying is defined as the repetitive and systematic engagement of interpersonally abusive behaviors that negatively affect both the targeted individual and the work organization. According to the findings of 12 studies, being bullied in the workplace affects approximately 11 percent of workers. Victims are frequently blue-collar and unskilled workers. However, there also appear to be gender and milieu/management factors. Emotional/psychological consequences of workplace bullying may include increased mental distress, sleep disturbances, fatigue in women and lack of vigor in men, depression and anxiety, adjustment disorders, and even work-related suicide. Medical consequences of workplace bullying may include an increase in health complaints such as neck pain, musculoskeletal complaints, acute pain, fibromyalgia, and cardiovascular symptoms. Finally, socioeconomic consequences of workplace bullying may include absenteeism due to sick days and unemployment. Clinicians in both mental health and primary care settings need to be alert to the associations between bullying in the workplace and these potential negative consequences, as patients may not disclose workplace maltreatment due to embarrassment or fears of retribution.

This ongoing column is dedicated to the challenging clinical interface between psychiatry and primary care—two fields that are inexorably linked.

INTRODUCTION

Bullying among children and adolescents is well-known, with cyber bullying representing the newest frontier. However, bullying by peers can also occur among adults—particularly in the workplace. In this edition of The Interface, we discuss the definition, epidemiology, and various adverse consequences of bullying in the workplace. To gather the information for this article, we performed a PubMed search, using the term workplace bullying. We excluded prevalence articles on children, adolescents, and medical personnel (e.g., nurses, physicians, dentists, midwives, and various trainees) because of the concerns about the ability to generalize findings to other employee populations. We also excluded articles that focused on mobbing (a term that appears to refer to a variant of bullying) as well as articles written in a language other than English (if the abstract was unclear). Given these exclusions, we are about to disclose a story of bullying that is substantiated by uneven data. But, nonetheless, a story unfolds—a story of adverse emotional, medical, and socioeconomic consequences that is relevant to both mental health professionals and primary care clinicians.

A WORKING DEFINITION OF WORKPLACE BULLYING

According to Askew et al 1 , workplace bullying is the repetitive and systematic engagement of interpersonally abusive behaviors that negatively affect both the targeted individual as well as the work organization. These behaviors oftentimes occur when there are actual or perceived power imbalances between the perpetrator and the victim. The behavioral repertoires of the perpetrators typically include intimidation, degradation, and humiliation of the victim.

THE PREVALENCE OF WORKPLACE BULLYING

In the extant literature, there are a number of studies on the prevalence of bullying in the workplace. However, these collective data are difficult to interpret and compare for various reasons. First, a number of studies do not specify for the reader the timeframe for the query on bullying, so we do not know if these are point-, 12-month-, or lifelong prevalence rates. Moreover, some prevalence queries seem to relate to the time period during which the individual was employed in a given work setting. Second, in addition to the nebulous nature of reported prevalence rates, there is the murky issue of clinically defining bullying. What constitutes clinical bullying— perpetration daily, several times per week, once weekly, or several times per month? Would there need to be an identifiable negative consequence of bullying? Finally, while there are criteria sets for clinical bullying, 2 these are rarely applied in the literature. Despite these limitations, we have summarized the majority of studies that describe prevalence rates for bullying in the workplace ( Table 1 ). 3 - 14

Prevalence rates of bullying in the workplace

To synopsize these articles, most have been published within the past decade. Nearly all datasets are from European countries, with one exception (Australia). No study in Table 1 is from the United States. The majority of studies have examined mixtures of various types of workers, rather than a specific type of worker (e.g., employees of the Swedish postal service). Of the more than 70 thousand employees in these 12 studies, approximately 11 percent reported histories of workplace bullying at some point in their careers. Thus, 11 percent appears to be an approximate baseline rate for bullying in the workplace.

Recently, researchers have examined another form of bullying in the workplace—cyberbullying. According to Privitera and Campbell, 15 10.7 percent of Australian manufacturing workers reported this novel form of workplace bullying ( N =103). Note that this percentage is nearly identical to the general prevalence rate for bullying in the workplace that we calculated in our summary.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BE BULLIED IN THE WORKPLACE?

Several studies have examined epidemiological factors in the work environment in an effort to determine who is likely to be bullied. Job area or type appears to be one predictor. In this regard, Alterman et al 16 found that specific job areas posed a greater risk of bullying than others. These investigators reported that administrative and retail areas had the highest rates of workplace bullying in contrast to construction, finance and insurance, manufacturing, and the professional, scientific, and/or technical industries. As for specific jobs, workplace bullying was highest among community and social-service workers. Niedhammer et al 5 found that high-risk areas for workplace bullying included jobs related to services for men, various categories of associate professionals, low-level white and blue-collar workers for men, and government associate professionals for women. Oretega et al 7 reported that unskilled workers had the highest levels of workplace bullying as well as male-dominated professions and employees working with clients/patients. 7 Notelaers et al 11 found that the highest levels of workplace bullying were among employees in public service as well as blue-collar, food, and manufacturing jobs. Finally, Keuskamp et al 13 found that being in a professional occupation posed a higher risk of workplace bullying. While these data indicate diverse possibilities, blue- collar and unskilled workers appear to be consistently at risk.

Gender differences with regard to workplace bullying have also been examined. Oxenstierna et al 17 found that for both genders, organizational change and conflicting demands in the work environment were risk factors for workplace bullying; however, dictatorial leadership, lack of procedural justice, and the attitude of expendability were male factors for workplace bullying, whereas the lack of humanity was a female factor for workplace bullying. In an Italian study, Campanini et al 18 also found gender themes. Specifically, men were more likely to be bullied around their work performance, whereas women were more likely to be bullied around their personal values.

Beyond occupational areas/jobs and gender, researchers have also identified factors related to management and milieu. For example, Law et al 19 found that the “psychosocial safety climate,” defined as shared perceptions of the work structure that protect workers’ psychological health and safety, moderated relationships with workplace bullying. Punzi et al 20 found that company changes and organizational conflicts were the main antecedents for bullying in the workplace.

Interestingly, the possibility of a victim personality profile has been explored by Glaso et al. 21 These researchers found that 64 percent of their sample demonstrated no personality differences in comparison with nonvictim controls. In other words, there does not appear to be a consistent victim personality.

NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF BULLYING

Like bullying in childhood, bullying in adulthood is also associated with a number of negative consequences, affecting emotional/psychological, medical, and socioeconomic areas of functioning.

Emotional/psychological consequences of workplace bullying. Several studies have verified that increased stress and mental distress are possible psychological aftermaths of workplace bullying, 22 - 24 even up to two years later. 24 Investigators have also identified the consequences of sleep disturbances; 10 , 25 - 27 depression and anxiety; 28 - 33 fatigue in women and lack of vigor in men; 34 major depression; 35 mood, anxiety, and adjustment disorders; 36 and even work-related suicide. 37 Likely because of the preceding emotional difficulties, studies have also identified among the bullied a greater use of hypnotics 38 as well as greater use of psychotropic medications in general. 39 , 40

In contrast to the preceding negative findings, one study identified among New Zealand social workers an increase in resilience following workplace bullying. 41 This was a qualitative study of 17 participants, and the ability to generalize findings to other types of worker samples is a potential concern.

Medical consequences of workplace bullying. In addition to emotional/psychological consequences of workplace bullying, researchers have identified a number of medical consequences, as well. These include greater general health complaints, 42 neck pain, 43 musculoskeletal complaints, 44 acute pain, 45 fibromyalgia, 46 and cardiovascular disease. 47 With regard to cardiovascular disease, the odds ratio for bullied participants compared to nonbullied counterparts was 2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-4.6).

Socioeconomic consequences of workplace bullying. In addition to emotional/psychological and medical consequences of workplace bullying, there also appear to be socioeconomic consequences. These include an increase in absenteeism due to sick days, 3 , 33 , 48 - 50 greater likelihood of long-term absence due to sick leave, 51 - 52 and greater rates of unemployment through either job loss or leaving voluntarily. 53

Workplace bullying is defined as the repetitive and systematic engagement of interpersonally abusive behaviors that negatively affect both the targeted individual and the work organization. According to the findings of 12 studies, the approximate prevalence rate of bullying in the workplace at some point in one’s career may be around 11 percent. Blue-collar and unskilled workers may be most at risk, but gender and management/milieu may also be salient factors. As expected, there are a number of negative emotional/psychological, medical, and socioeconomic consequences in the aftermath of workplace bullying. Clinicians in both mental health and primary care settings need to be alert to the associations between bullying in the workplace and these potential consequences, as workers may not spontaneously reveal these associations due to embarrassment or fears of retribution.

FUNDING: There was no funding for the development and writing of this article.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

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 Institute © 2024. WBI is a Social Purpose Corporation.

Harassment and bullying at work

Understand what bullying and harassment at work is, and how employers and employees can address the problem

This factsheet examines what constitutes harassment and bullying at work, and outlines employers' and employees' responsibilities in addressing the problem. It also gives advice on dealing with complaints.

Explore our viewpoint on bullying and harassment  in more detail, along with actions for government and recommendations for employers.

On this page

• What are harassment and bullying?
• The UK legal position
• Responsibilities of employers and employees
• Dealing with complaints
• Useful contacts and further reading

The spectrum of workplace incivility and unfair treatment

Bullying and harassment occur at the more severe end of the workplace incivility spectrum. Read our evidence review on workplace incivility and bullying for more detail on workplace incivility.

In the UK, under the Equality Act 2010, harassment is defined as: "unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual". Bullying is not specifically defined in UK law but Acas says bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power that undermines, humiliates, or causes physical or emotional harm to someone.  

People have the right to be treated with dignity and respect at work and organisations should take any form of incivility and harassment or bullying seriously. People professionals should lead on developing a positive and inclusive culture that doesn't tolerate any form of unfair treatment or incivility.

What are harassment and bullying behaviours?

Harassment and bullying may be against one or more people and may involve single or repeated incidents across a wide spectrum of behaviour, ranging from extreme forms of intimidation, such as physical violence, to more subtle forms such as ignoring someone. Examples include:

• Unwanted physical contact.
• Unwelcome remarks about many personal matters including a person’s age, dress, appearance, race or marital status, jokes at personal expense, offensive language, gossip, slander, sectarian songs and letters.
• Isolation or non-cooperation and exclusion from social activities.
• Coercion for sexual favours - sexual harassment.
• Pressure to participate in political/religious groups.
• Personal intrusion from pestering, spying and stalking.
• Persistent unwarranted criticism.
• Personal insults.
• Cyber bullying including the use of internet, mobile technology, social media, messaging platforms, gaming platforms or mobile phones to harass, bully, or cause harm to another.

A quarter (25%) of employees experienced conflict or abuse in the past 12 months according to the CIPD 2024 Good Work Index . Among those who experienced conflict, the most common types of conflict were:

• being humiliated or undermined (48% of those experiencing conflict)
• being shouted at or in a very heated argument (35%)
• verbal abuse or insult (34%)
• discriminatory behaviour because of a protected characteristic, such as sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief or age (20%). 

In Great Britain, harassment because of someone's age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation or other protected characteristic is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. Harassment which is entirely unrelated to a protected characteristic isn't covered by the act.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance on  harassment  and the  Equality Act , including a  Code of practice on employment . Whilst not legally binding documents, the codes give important guidance on good practice and failure to follow it may be taken into account by tribunals or courts.

The law protects individuals from harassment while applying for a job, in employment and in some circumstances after the working relationship has ended, for example, in connection with the provision of a verbal or written reference. There's also protection for people against harassment on the basis of their membership or non-membership of a trade union and, in Northern Ireland, against harassment on the basis of political belief. (In England and Wales, harassment because of political views isn't always automatically protected although employees who are dismissed because of their political opinions don't need two years’ service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.)

Previous governments have introduced, and then removed, express protection for third-party harassment from the Equality Act. The current position regarding sexual harassment is set out below. The government may also re-introduce laws requiring employers to specifically protect employees from harassment by third parties related to any protected characteristic. In the meantime, wider liability can still arise from other legal duties, for example breach of contract, direct discrimination, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and so on. These other legal duties and good practice mean that employers should continue to take steps to protect employees from harassment from anyone they come into contact with, including third parties such as customers or clients.

Sexual harassment 

From October 2024 the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 strengthens existing protection for workers against sexual harassment. The new law will place a new duty on employers to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment, including by third parties. See this CIPD article for more information on how your organisation can prepare for this legislative change . 

Read our  guidance on how employers should respond  to sexual harassment complaints and build gender-inclusive workplaces. CIPD members can use our more detailed  resource pack .

The UK legal position on bullying is more complex as there's no single piece of legislation which deals with workplace bullying. Bullying may be covered by:

• The Equality Act 2010, if it is linked to a protected characteristic.
• The Employment Rights Act 1996, especially the ‘detriment’ provisions.
• Claims for breach of an express or implied term of the employment contract - for example, breach of the implied term to take care of employees.
• Criminal or civil provisions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1998.

Bullying might also be covered by a myriad of other legal principles and laws, for example:

• The common law obligation for an employer to take care of workers’ safety.
• Personal injury protection and duties to take care of workers arising out of Tort law.
• Health and Safety at work etc Act 1974.
• Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
• Whistleblower protections.
• Human Rights Act 1998.

Bullying and harassment are still a stubborn and serious issue in many workplaces.

Employers should put in place a well-communicated policy and guidance that clearly states the organisation’s commitment to promoting dignity and respect at work. Employers’ responsibilities may extend to work-related activities, such as work parties or outings. 

Employers should be especially aware of ‘cyber bullying’. Our research  found that cyber-bullying is more common than inappropriate behaviour at a work social event, with one in ten employees reporting that it happened.

All individuals have a responsibility to behave in ways which support an inclusive and tolerant working environment. Everyone should play their part in making the organisation’s policy a reality and employers should challenge inappropriate behaviour and take action. 

Developing a climate of respect

Promoting a positive climate at work for everyone based on personal respect and dignity will help to prevent inappropriate behaviour starting. Senior leaders should have a clear vision and demonstrate strong values that communicate what a climate of dignity and respect looks like. 

Employers also need to think about the stressors on their people, particularly those who feel overloaded in their role, or are unclear on how to fulfil their tasks or meet job demands. 

Policies, communication and training

A well-designed policy is essential to tackle bullying or harassment and may help employers defend claims, provided the employer also took all reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour. Policies and guidance should be agreed with trade union or employee representatives, communicated to everyone and be proactively followed. They should, for example:

• Give examples of what constitutes harassment, bullying and intimidating behaviour, including cyber-bullying, work-related events and harassment by third parties.
• Explain the damaging effects and why it will not be tolerated.
• State that it will be treated as a disciplinary offence where a case is proven.
• Describe how to get help and make a complaint, formally and informally.
• Define the policy’s scope, for example, applicability to agency and freelance staff, also addressing third-party harassment and work-related situations outside normal hours.
• Promise that allegations will be treated speedily, seriously and confidentially, and that the employer prevents victimisation.
• Clarify the accountability of all managers, and the role of union or employee representatives.
• Require supervisors/managers to implement policy and ensure it is understood.
• Emphasise that every employee carries responsibility for their behaviour.

All employees should:

• Be made aware - through induction, training, guidance and other processes - about their rights and personal responsibilities under the policy and understand the organisation’s commitment to deal with harassment.
• Know who to contact if they want to discuss their experiences to decide what steps to take.
• Know how to make a complaint and the timescales for any formal procedures.

The policy should be monitored and regularly reviewed for effectiveness, including:

• Records of complaints - why and how they occurred, who was involved and where.
• Individual complaints to ensure resolution and no victimisation.

It’s also essential that line managers have regular training and understand their role in addressing all forms of inappropriate behaviour, and that they have access to help and support with appropriate confidentiality and sensitivity. Policies should specify a choice of contact if the line manager is the alleged harasser or bully.

There’s more in our  Dealing with conflict at work guide .

All complaints should be dealt with promptly. 

Our work on  managing conflict  shows that a growing number of employers and employees are open to using an independent third party to help resolve workplace conflict.  Mediation  is a voluntary impartial process and can be used in alleged bullying and harassment cases where both parties are willing to participate and the complaint isn't at the serious end of the spectrum.

Listen to our podcast:  Handling harassment: are you getting it right?

If informal approaches don’t work or aren’t appropriate, formal procedures should be triggered. 

Anti-bullying and harassment policies should align with the organisation's policy for dealing with  grievances and disciplinary issues, clearly defining what constitutes gross misconduct. IT policies should also be co-ordinated, explicitly prohibiting the use of workplace systems for online harassment or bullying.

Investigation

Formal allegations of harassment, bullying or any intimidating behaviour should be treated as a disciplinary offence. Investigation should include:

• A prompt, thorough and impartial response.
• Taking evidence from witnesses.
• Listening to both the alleged harasser and the complainant’s version of events.
• A time-scale for resolving the problem.
• Confidentiality in the majority of cases.

All sensitive information should be treated confidentially and meet the requirements of  data protection law.

Confidentiality or Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)

NDAs should never be used to cover up inappropriate behaviour and wrongdoing, such as harassment. People professionals have an important role to play in ensuring the ethical use of NDAs and that they are never used as a means to silence alleged victims of unfair treatment such as bullying and harassment.  Acas guidance makes very clear that confidentiality clauses should not be used as a matter of routine and that there are many circumstances where it may be inappropriate and/or unlawful to use confidentiality clauses. Confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements will always be unenforceable where they attempt to hide something that cannot legally be kept confidential. 

Acas - Discrimination, bullying and harassment

GOV.UK - Workplace bullying and harassment

Equalities and Human Rights Commission – What is harassment?

Sexual Harassment at Work - legal advice telephone helpline provided by charity Rights of Women

TUC – Reporting work-related violence

Books and reports

Equalities and Human Rights Commission. (2020)  Sexual harassment and harassment at work: technical guidance . London: EHRC.

Evesson, J., Oxenbridge, S. and Taylor, D. (2015)  Seeking better solutions: tackling bullying and ill-treatment in Britain’s workplaces . Acas Policy Discussion Paper. London: Acas.

Fisher, V. and Kinsey, S. (2018)  Lifting the lid on sexual harassment and power in the workplace . CIPD Applied Research Conference Paper. Reviewed in Bitesize research.

Hoel, H., Lewis, D. and Einarsdottir, A. (2014)  The  ups and downs of LGBs’ workplace experiences: discrimination, bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay and bisexual employees in Britain . Manchester: Manchester Business School.

Quigg, A-M. (2015) The handbook of dealing with workplace bullying . Farnham: Gower.

Young, J. and Gifford, J. (2022) Bullying and incivility at work: an evidence review. Practice summary and recommendations . London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Journal articles

Aldridge, C., Pugh, A. and Dougan, V. (2024) New EHRC guidance on preventing workplace sexual harassment. People Management (online). 29 July. 

Atwal, M. (2019)  What does the Stalking Protection Act mean for employers ?  People Management  (online). 2 September.

Fox, R. (2017) Fair investigation of sexual harassment claims .  People Management  (online). 28 November.

Jackson, I. (2024) Worker Protection Act: how should employers prepare? People Management (online). 27 August. 

Koshnitsky, N. (2019)  Combating sexual harassment at work .  People Management  (online). 18 February.

Palmer, S. (2020)  When is 'just banter' not just banter ?  People Management  (online). 23 January.

Rubino, C. at al. (2018) And justice for all: How organizational justice climate deters sexual harassment.  Personnel Psychology . Vol 71, No 4. pp519-544. Reviewed in Bitesize research.

Soakell, C. (2021) Tackling bullying and harassment in a remote working environment .  People Management  (online). 15 January.

CIPD members can use our  online journals  to find articles from over 300 journal titles relevant to HR.

Members and  People Management  subscribers can see articles on the  People Management  website.

This factsheet was last updated by Lisa Ayling and Rachel Suff.

Lisa Ayling: solicitor and employment law specialist

Lisa is a lawyer with many years’ experience of contentious and non‐contentious employment law. As well as writing and editing employment law content for the CIPD, Lisa lectures extensively on employment law, including years as a senior lecturer and leader of the employment team at BPP University and on the LLM programme at Kingston University. 

Rachel Suff: Senior Employee Relations Adviser, CIPD

Rachel informs CIPD policy thinking on health and wellbeing as well as employment relations. She has over 25 years’ experience in the employment and HR arena.

Tackling barriers to work today whilst creating inclusive workplaces of tomorrow.

Bullying and harassment

Discover our practice guidance and recommendations to tackle bullying and harassment in the workplace.

Related content

Explore our collection of resources around bullying and harassment in the workplace

Practical advice on how people professionals can tackle workplace bullying and conflict

Our guide will help you proactively tackle bullying and workplace disputes

Clear and practical advice on the proper use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses and how to avoid inappropriate use

Explore our other factsheets

Understand the advantages and disadvantages of zero-hours contracts, recent UK legislative changes, and good practices to follow

How artificial intelligence (AI), robots and automation are shaping the world of work, the ethical considerations and the role of people professionals.

Learn about the influence of theories on how people learn and the shift away from simplistic learning styles theory

Understand the links between work, health and wellbeing, and the role of stakeholders in adopting an organisational approach to employee wellbeing

Persisting Menace: A Case-Based Study of Remote Workplace Bullying in India

• Original Article
• Published: 19 December 2022

Cite this article

• Satyalakshmi Kompella   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7453-1849 1  

3370 Accesses

3 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Workplace bullying refers to the aggressive behavior and mistreatment towards an employee from peers and/or superiors. When this behavior takes place frequently and for long duration, it causes a high level of stress in the employee, in turn causing direct and indirect damage to the organization. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a massive shift from the physical office environment to the work-from-home situation. As the face-to-face interactions between the employees were replaced by video conferencing and other technology-induced interactions, it was expected that the problem of workplace bullying will disappear or will be reduced to a great extent. Instead, the incidents of harassment by colleagues and superiors continue to be reported by employees who are working from home. Organizations are most likely to continue with the work-from-home arrangements even after the easing of the pandemic situation. In this likelihood, developing a comprehensive understanding of bullying in the remote workplace assumes vital significance. The paper uses the case study approach to explore the elements involved in the bullying of remote employees. Analysis of remote bullying incidents from various perspectives revealed that the harassment experienced by the employees in the remote workplace displays all the elements of workplace bullying. Research on the concept and manifestation of remote bullying is in a nascent stage. The study holds significant implications for policymakers and organizations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector

Mobbing: A Qualitative Analysis of Cases from Turkish White-Collar Employees

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Globally, millions of workers were asked to work from home due to the lockdown conditions in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic. Once the epidemic abates and the situation returns to almost normal, employees may return to the physical workplace, but some employees may continue to work in the remote environment. In their 2020 global survey report titled “Reworking Work: Understanding the Rise of Work Anywhere,” Atlassian Corporation reported that 66% of the Indian workforce wanted to continue working from home, higher than all the countries in the survey (Most Indian prefer to work remotely, 2021 ). Reports from the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and other surveys reveal that the post-COVID scenario may see more employees continuing in the work-from-home mode than before.

Some companies may resort to a hybrid model where some jobs are permanently assigned to work-from-home mode. Indian technology giant, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), has developed a risk assessment model termed “Intelligent Urban Exchange,” to determine the modalities of a possible hybrid model. So, it can be concluded that the option of working from home will continue for selected employees in selected organizations in the post-pandemic situation. In this regard, awareness of the impact of remote bullying is of great significance. Understanding the forms of remote bullying and its impact on the employees’ productivity and stress level, often leading to the decision to exit from employment, is of special interest to organizations and human resource managers. Workplace bullying has been found to be prevalent in all organizations, regardless of level and sector. According to a survey conducted in 2019, more than 50% of the employees in India have reported that they have experienced bullying at the workplace in some form or the other (55% Indian employees bullied at work, 2020 ). Many researchers have studied the forms of bullying, the causes, and its effects and have suggested measures for the prevention of bullying in the workplace. With the shift of workplace from physical offices to remote locations after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was initially considered to be advantageous to the employees as they could spend more time with families (Purwanto et al.,  2020 ). Incidences of bullying were found to be more pervasive in “collated teams” (Flanigan,  2020 ). The absence of collocated teams in the post-pandemic situation was expected to minimize the risk of harassment from colleagues and managers. Moreover, the employees were experiencing the safety of home. Instead, the incidence of bullying continues to be reported from work-from-home situations, and this type of bullying has been found to adopt various forms that are different from those seen in face-to-face bullying and bullying in a group.

The effects of this type of bullying are no less devastating than the bullying in a physical workplace. Remedial actions also suffer from the lack of clear policy guidelines by organizations on harassment of employees working from home. The incidents of workplace bullying in a physical workplace have been shown to have a direct relationship with the decision to leave the job (Djurkovic et al.,  2003 ; Hoel et al.,  2020 ; Yom et al.,  2017a , b ). This study probes into the effect of workplace bullying on job stress and the job retention decisions of employees working from home. This study is based on case studies that describe the workplace bullying experienced by employees who are working from home, and these cases have been collated after several months of observation and discussion.

Few studies are available on the impact and incidence of bullying behavior among employees operating in a remote environment. Ezerins and Ludwig ( 2021 ) reported that organizational behavior management (OBM) strategies may provide additional insight for developing sustainable ifound to be beneficial to organizationsnterventions for workplace incivility. A study conducted in Spain and Germany showed that workplace cyberbullying (WCB) can have a more detrimental impact on victims’ mental health than traditional face-to-face bullying (Czakert et al.,  2021 ). To understand the effect of bullying on the performance of remote workers, the impact of bullying on employees in the physical workplace can be considered the benchmark. Parallels can also be drawn between the negative impact of cyber aggression and cyberbullying on children and adults (Craig et al.,  2020 ; Uludasdemir & Kucuk,  2019 ). As the remote workers are connected to the teams and managers through the networks, the bullying experienced by these workers may be a form of cyberbullying albeit in a workplace context.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the nascent body of literature on the impact of bullying in remote environments by drawing from the literature on bullying in the workplace and the phenomenon of cyberbullying. The study has two objectives:

To determine if the harassment of employees working from home can be termed bullying and

To build-up an assessment model that incorporates the modalities of the virtual workplace into the basic aspects of bullying in the workplace.

The distinguishing characteristics of the remote workers and the tools of communication used to accomplish the given tasks are taken into consideration to provide a comprehensive picture of bullying in the remote environment.

This study covers two forms of virtual bullying: one involves the display of unprofessional and inappropriate behavior towards the female employee, and the other is undermining the relevance of the employee. The study uses case studies where the recipients of bullying reported it directly to the reporting managers, who are the aggressors. Analysis of the case events was performed to draw parallels between bullying in physical and virtual environments (Table 1 ).

The introduction is followed by a review of the literature. The methodology followed in the study is detailed in the third section followed by results and discussions. Limitations and scope for further research are explained in the last section.

Literature Review

Workplace bullying in the physical workplace.

Bullying (or mobbing) is a situation where “an employee is persistently subjected to negative and aggressive behaviors at work, mainly of a psychological nature. The employee is constantly teased, badgered, and insulted, and perceives that he or she has little recourse to retaliate in kind” (Einarsen,  2000 , p 381). The characteristics of workplace bullying are displayed in Table 2 .

As pointed out by Einarsen et al. ( 2009 ), bullying can involve aggression and mistreatment from colleagues (horizontal bullying), from managers (downward bullying), or from subordinates (upward bullying). When a single act of the above behavior is directed against a particular employee, the behavior may be termed as “unruly.” They are considered as minor issues or of some nuisance value and are generally handled in the context of organizational culture.

When these unruly acts are repeatedly targeted against the employee(s) for a long period of time, the recipient employee(s) feel(s) extreme stress (Palinkas et al, 2015 ). To be classified as bullying, the workplace aggressions should be frequent and persistent (Einarsen et al., 2000 ).

The bullied employee displays work-related behaviors like burnout, absenteeism, and low morale, often leading to resignations. Employees who experience bullying also display health-related, psychological, and affective problems (Bartlett & Bartlett,  2011 ). When employees of a workplace are subjected to bullying, the organization also faces adverse effects. Incidents of bullying negatively impact the organization in terms of productivity, costs, culture, and legal and reputation damages (Einarsen et al.,  2009 ).

Effects of Bullying in the Workplace

Significant research on workplace bullying can be found in studies by Leymann ( 1996 ) and Liefooghe and Olafsson ( 1999 ) based on Scandinavian, German, and European populations. Workplace bullying causes a high level of stress in the employee, destroying his/her self-confidence and self-esteem (Hsu et al, 2019 ). The bullying experiences frequently result in the employees questioning their own self-worth and losing confidence (Conway et al.,  2021 ). Employees also adopt passive coping strategies in response to workplace mistreatment, like using employee silence (Rai & Agarwal,  2018 ). The victim of bullying displays deliberate or unintentional withholding of crucial and general information from the organization. This is referred to as “employee silence,” and it is shown to hamper the functioning of the concerned team or the department (Rai & Agarwal,  2018 ).

The Remote Workplace

The term “remote workplace” refers to the work environment in which the employees work outside of a traditional office environment. These employees are not required to report to a specific, physical space on a regular basis to get their work done. Various terms like “working from home” (Waizenegger et al.,  2020 ), “distributed workplace” (Ruhleder & Jordan,  2001 ), and “location-independent workplace” (Nash,  2019 ) have been used in the previous studies to indicate the remote environment and will be used synonymously in this article. Prior to the pandemic-induced changes, “co-located” workplaces were the preferred workplace arrangements where employees worked side by side.

Individuals working from home are not a recent phenomenon or a pandemic-induced new work adaptation, as there have been instances of employees working from home during the early 1900s. The concept became popular with improved work arrangements, aided by changes in technology. In their article “Two cheers for the virtual office,” Davenport and Pearlson ( 1998 ) attributed the advent of technology to the adoption of remote working as a way of getting work done. Work-from-home arrangements benefit employers in terms of direct cost savings by way of reduced or no maintenance of office premises and indirect cost savings like reduced turnover associated with increased employee satisfaction (Dutcher & Saral,  2012 ). Employing virtual teams is found to be beneficial to organizations in terms of accessing talented employees from all around the globe without the constraints of place and time (Treinen & Miller-Frost,  2006 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic and the need for social distancing meant that organizations had to look for alternative workplaces as employees could not operate from offices. This gave rise to a remote working arrangement or work from home (WFH), which enabled businesses to perform most of the activities using mobile or other digital platforms (Kaushik & Guleria,  2020 ). Remote working was not a preference or a choice for the employees but a compulsion, irrespective of the nature of the job or their abilities. Employees working from home had to adapt quickly to the situation while continuing to perform their designated roles (Dubey & Tripathi,  2020 ).

Face-to-face interaction with peers, supervisors, and top executives was replaced by mediated communication or interaction through technology. Interactions, both brief and extended, were taking place using ICT tools (Swain et al, 2020 ). It has been shown that such technology-mediated interactions are often responsible for conflicts based on esteem, control, and affiliation (relational conflicts) among employees (Salonen,  2017 ).

Since organizations had to quickly create an effective remote work environment due to the March 2020 declaration of lockdown in India, employees had to effect the transformation from a co-located environment to a remote environment with very little or no training. This has put pressure on employees to acclimate to the new communication methods and achieve effective communication (Irawanto et al.,  2021 ).

The Physical Workplace vs. the Remote Workplace

Before initiating the discussion on bullying in the remote workplace, it is necessary to understand the essential differences between the physical and remote workplaces in terms of usage of digital tools, management, communication, and productivity (Stich,  2020 ). The physical workplace helps develop camaraderie between employees through casual and official interactions and helps build organizational culture. The creation of trust, collaboration, and communication can be established in the physical workplace (Barbosa & Ferreira-Lopes,  2021 ). However, this work environment also suffers from the possibility of pseudo-productive work accomplishment (Sundin,  2010 ). The remote workplace, on the other hand, has been shown to promote flexibility, adaptability, and problem-solving (Janene-Nelson & Sutherland,  2020 ) (see Table 3 ).

Workplace Cyberbullying

The term “workplace cyberbullying” refers to the situation where employees are subjected to bullying by their colleagues, not face-to-face but through the information and communications technology (ICT) medium (Loh & Snyman,  2020 ). Employees may be victimized by cyberbullying during and/or after work hours (Keskin et al.,  2016 ). Cyberbullying involves aggressive and uncivil behavior by the aggressor in the form of comments or the posting of pictures against the targeted employee via phone messages, emails, websites, and social media posts (Cassidy et al., 2018 ). This type of bullying enables the aggressor to remain anonymous while making the comments or while replying to posts (Kamara, 2020 ). The employees in the physical workplace are subjected to cyberbullying, which may occur as a standalone incident or in tandem with traditional bullying.

When cyberbullying is characterized by repetitive acts of aggressive behavior and happens between two individuals with a power imbalance, it is seen that the victim is under a great deal of stress, ultimately impacting the employee’s performance in the workplace (Zhang et al.,  2021 ). Workplace cyberbullying has been shown to be conceptually similar to traditional face-to-face bullying in the physical workplace (Farley et al.,  2016 ).

Knowledge about cyberbullying becomes crucial for the present study as the bullying in the remote workplace shares some similarities with cyberbullying (Wang et al, 2019 ). The occurrence of both of these acts is aided by the medium of ICT, which is the channel where cyberbullying takes place (Willard, 2006 , 2007 ). The remote workplace also involves ICT tools, as face-to-face interactions are vastly minimized in the remote workplace and communication is mediated through the tools of ICT. Also, bullying can take place anywhere and at any time in both of these forms of bullying, bridging the gaps of time and space divides (D’Cruz & Noronha,  2018a , b ).

On the other hand, cyberbullying differs from bullying in the remote workplace in the degree of anonymity that is available to the cyberbully while committing the acts of bullying. Cyberbullies largely remain anonymous on various platforms, and that is the reason why anonymity has been associated with higher rates of bullying (Szczyglowski,  2018 ). However, when bullying occurs in a remote workplace, the bully(ies) can be seen and heard and are clearly identifiable. Another difference is that cyberbullying facilitates the sustenance and escalation of the bullying episodes through the multiple likes and shares available on the social media platforms, whereas in the case of the remote workplace, the bullying episodes remain within the team (Chan et al.,  2020 ; Privitera & Campbell,  2009 ).

Bullying in the Remote Workplace

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the transformation of physical workplaces into remote workplaces. During the pandemic, remote working was not a preference or a choice for the employees but a compulsion, irrespective of the nature of the job or their abilities.

Face-to-face interactions in the physical workplace or co-presence with the team members and managers promote workplace culture and help make sense of the employees’ emotions, body language, and embodied experiences. The communication through virtual channels is different and novel for the work-from-home employees due to the absence of face-to-face interactions (Howard-Grenville,  2020 ). All these factors culminate in the remote employees’ sense of psychological stress due to the distance, reliance, and technology (Flanigan,  2020 ). A survey by McKinsey and Company indicated that the unprecedented move to WFH and subsequent recurring waves of occurrence of the infection have caused anxiety and work and performance-related stress in the remote workers (The future of work after COVID-19,  2021 ).

Anxiety about the future and stress arising out of remote work have been shown to be strongly associated with bullying at the workplace (Feijó et al.,  2019 ). In view of these findings, the susceptibility of the remote workers to bullying from peers and managers needs to be studied. Very few studies are available on the incidence and effects of bullying among employees in remote environments. There are some studies that have probed into the impact of bullying on virtual workers (Mortensen & Hinds, 2001 ). A dissertation conducted on virtual workers divulged that they are at risk of workplace bullying and that the effects of bullying are in accordance with the physical, psychological, and social effects found in several studies regarding collocated workers. Findings also reveal that the nature of virtual work can increase the likelihood of bullying among these workers (Flanigan,  2020 ). In her book on “Online bullying of workers,” D’Cruz ( 2016 ) has observed that online bullying of workers is a widespread problem and is expected to increase considerably in the future.

The present study focuses on the Indian employees who are presently working from home since the declaration of lockdown in 2020. Before this period, these employees were mostly co-located and worked from the office environment. The study combines aspects of the extant literature on bullying in the workplace and cyberbullying to probe into the phenomenon of bullying among employees working from home.

Methodology

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. This method helped establish credibility regarding the existence of the phenomenon of workplace bullying in a work-from-home situation. No empirical data was collected, as the objective of the study was not to generalize across the entire working population who are working from home.

Research Design

The research design adopted for this study was the case study approach. Two case studies that reflect the scope and seriousness of the issues faced by working professionals presently working from home since the announcement of lockdown in India were used to illustrate the phenomenon of workplace bullying. 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. Though qualitative research results cannot be applied to the entire population (as no testing of hypotheses is performed), they helped in providing a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. This understanding would be helpful for organizational leaders to take appropriate corrective and preventive measures.

The present study used purposeful sampling to identify and select individuals who have experienced some form of workplace bullying in a traditional or remote work environment. Purposeful sampling is a technique widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources (Yin,  2014a ). Additionally, only those individuals who were available and willing to participate in the research and could communicate their experiences and opinions in a clear and concise manner were considered.

The profiles of working individuals were sourced from the author’s connections at LinkedIn, the online social network. A short message requesting participation was posted to their links, and it was stressed that participation was purely voluntary. The message also briefly outlined the details of the intended study. It was reiterated that the information was being collected for academic purposes only. A short questionnaire was sent to those individuals who responded positively to this message. Based on the request of the respondents, the questionnaires were sent to their personal email ids. The aim of the questionnaire was to determine if they had been subject to any form of harassment while working from home or if they knew of or had observed any instance of harassment happening to others (see Appendix for the questionnaire).

The questionnaire first ascertained if the respondents were working from home. Any replies that indicated that the respondents were no longer working or taking a sabbatical were not considered for the study. The age and gender of the respondents, along with the sector of work, were also elicited through the questions.

The questionnaire was aimed at examining whether the respondents were subjected to any bullying in the workplace or not. The questions were designed to elicit information on the details of bullying that the respondent was subjected to (if any). “Are you bullied at work?” helped reveal if the respondents were bullied. Those respondents who reported some forms of bullying were considered for further study. Those who did not report any bullying behavior were asked not to continue with the questionnaire. The question “When did the bullying start?” helped identify whether the bullying incidents were recent or not. It was noted that all bullying incidents were recent and started between less than a month ago and 3 months before the respondents were contacted by the author.

The respondents were asked to identify the bully to understand if the bullying was perpetrated by managers, colleagues, or subordinates of others. All bullying was reported to be perpetrated by managers, and no bullying was reported from colleagues, subordinates, or others.

Sometimes, the employee may or may not be subjected to bullying but may witness others being bullied. This information was also elicited through the question, “Have you witnessed bullying at work?”.

The question “Number of people bullied” probed into whether bullying was experienced by other employees or not. Both of these questions were answered mostly in the negative by the respondents. This response could be attributed to the fact that employees were working from home and had no opportunity to observe other employees and their interactions with the managers. Details of responses to the questions from the questionnaire are presented in Table 1 .

The respondents were also asked to share the questionnaire with their colleagues, friends, or family members who were working from home. This modified form of “snowball sampling” was used to generate as many leads as possible and identify the incidence of bullying. This method of sample collection was the most effective option for collecting information as the employees were functioning in a remote work environment. Unlike the traditional office work environment, where a large group of employees was available in a single location, the present group of employees was geographically scattered.

Most individuals prefer to ignore instances of harassment or bullying for fear of exposure or ridicule and are apt to reveal details of any harassment only under the condition of anonymity. In this paper, all the respondents answered the questionnaire on the condition of anonymity. The original list of 19 respondents contained LinkedIn profiles of connections who reported to be working from home since the commencement of national lockdown in March 2020. Each of them was asked to pass on the questionnaire to their contacts who were bullied or had seen bullying around them. The responses received from sharing the questionnaire varied from a minimum of 2 per respondent to a maximum of 6 per respondent. After rejecting incomplete responses, 48 final responses were obtained, where most of them stated that they were subjected to some form of bullying or that they were aware of some cases of bullying happening to their acquaintances. These responses were considered for further investigation.

A short email was sent to all 48 individuals, in which they were assured of the complete anonymity of their replies. To obtain relevant information from the respondents, prolonged communication between the respondents and the author was undertaken. Frank and accurate information was needed from the respondents to potentially searching and in-depth questions. The respondents were made aware of these requirements and were asked to email their responses.

Two respondents were zeroed in for in-depth study after they consented to answering further queries. Both victims were female and had worked in the offices before the lockdown. They have been working from home since March 2020. The aggressors were female in case 1 and male in case 2. Both were reporting managers, and the victims were reporting directly to them (see Table 4 ). Case study building was done using extensive interviews and individual narratives.

The interviews included question and answer sessions, reports, and discussions on workplace incidents that involved bullying behaviors and the victims’ reactions and thought processes. Due care was taken by the author in wording the probing questions. The words “bullying” or “negative action incidents” were used to describe the bullying actions. The words “perpetrator,” “aggressor,” or “bully” were used to describe the perpetrators. The respondents were also advised to use these words while describing the incidents. Words like “harassment,” “sexual harassment,” and “abuse” were completely avoided by the author in the emails. This was done to ensure that only bullying experiences were described by the respondents and that any other negative experiences outside the category of bullying were kept out of the study. The initial communication between the victims (or respondents) and the author was meant for confidence-building and to develop an understanding of the nature of aggression experienced by the respondents. By the time the victims were approached by the author, they had already been facing the bullying experiences for some time and had expressed their opinions clearly. Victims’ narratives of the aggressive behavior directed towards them helped the author ascertain whether the victims were subjected to person-related bullying, work-related bullying, or intimidation towards a person (Erwandi et al., 2021 ).

A considerable number of emails were exchanged to ascertain whether the respondents were indeed facing bullying behaviors or not. It was clarified from both respondents that.

They were at the receiving end of negative actions from one or more individuals.

The individual who was subjecting them to negative actions was a manager, colleague, or subordinate.

They (the respondents) were unable to defend themselves against those negative actions perpetrated against them.

The negative actions were not one-off incidents but occurred with a frequency of more than once a week (Erwandi et al., 2021 ).

At the beginning of the communication with the author, the respondents were merely responding to questions and were not offering any additional information regarding their experiences at the workplace. It took some time and an exchange of emails before both started speaking freely regarding the bullying experiences. Details of bullying behavior were elicited through questions with emphasis on the bully’s actions, the respondents’ handling of the situation, and the respondents’ state of mind. Emphasis was laid on the respondents’ feelings, reactions, and thought processes during the bullying episodes.

In the communication with the author, both victims were sure that they were unfairly subjected to aggressive treatment from their superiors, and as a result, they were agitated and experienced a state of stress. Bullying-related stress is common in employees who are subject to workplace bullying (Reknes et al., 2021 ). The victims clearly described the actions of the managers and how these behaviors impacted their performance and undermined their confidence and self-esteem. The victims noted that organizational mediation or escalation was not forthcoming to handle the bullying.

The communication with the victims ended after their decision to quit their respective organizations. In their final communications, the victims noted that they could have continued in the organization if a supportive organizational climate had been provided where they were safe from bullying. The interviews with the respondents started in August 2020 and continued till May 2021. A total of 172 and 220 emails were exchanged between the author and respondents of cases 1 and 2, respectively. Around 492 email transcript pages were analyzed to gather relevant information. Two emails were exchanged with the HR manager in case 1 respondent’s organization. The other HR in case 2 did not respond to the author’s emails.

Case Study 1: Experiences of an Employee with the Reporting Manager Undermining the Relevance of the Employee

The respondent in the case study is an executive with an edutech company. We will call her K. She is 36 years old and is presently head of an 8-member sales team. Her team is involved in scrutinizing the requirements of non-corporate clients and providing the details for customizing the products as per the client’s needs. These details are passed on to the delivery team. K reports to the product manager, A, who handles the leads team, delivery teams, and K’s team.

K was previously reporting to another product manager in the pre-COVID period. Since the initiation of work from home, K has been reporting to A. K has met A previously during the office work meetings, but this is the first time that she is reporting to A. K was confident that she would be able to work with A and anticipated no problems. But 4 weeks after the start of work from home, the bullying began.

It started with Zoom meetings. A wanted to be present in all Zoom meetings, whether it was with team members, the leads team, or the operations team. She also wanted to be sent the Zoom link for meetings that K scheduled with clients. A also insisted that her credentials should be mentioned in K’s introduction talk. These actions caused K a great deal of agitation and annoyance.

“Her presence was unnecessary for these meetings, and I felt I was under scrutiny throughout. Also, her presence was creating confusion in the minds of the clients and some team members. I was also not sure if she would silently participate in the meetings and listen to the proceedings or suddenly pitch in with clarifications or observations. This was really stressing me.”

Some clients asked K if they should address further correspondence to A, as she was the senior person. K felt that A had no confidence in her work and was looking to find faults in the way she managed her team and clients. But she did not take up the issue with A; she felt the matter would smooth out on its own in due time.

But matters escalated, and the bullying extended into real-time work monitoring. K’s team was a mix of experienced and newly hired employees. So, K, as an experienced team leader, monitored the newcomers much more closely than the others. K said,

“I knew the capabilities and issues with the older team members. If the work was being done on time, I did not interfere much.”

This was not acceptable to A. She instructed K to monitor the team much more closely and not let any slack in the team’s functioning. One of the team members, P, was having some domestic issues and wanted to report late to work for a week. He was good at his work, and he made up for lost time by foregoing his breaks or extending the work sessions. He explained his situation to K and pleaded for some relaxation during his work hours. K had no issues with this arrangement as P was an important member of the team. However, A made it a point to mention the issue of P’s late reporting at the weekly review and sent emails to all the team members, cautioning them not to follow in P’s footsteps.

“She was undermining my leadership and team handling. I was unable to function properly and was always conscious of being under watch.”

The breaking point was reached when A forwarded these emails to the department head and showcased them as K’s inability to deal with the team. A reported that K was not satisfactory as the team lead and failed to impose discipline and control on the team. The department head asked K for an explanation. K was devastated.

“What do I do now? If I bring in charges of bullying against A, it will seem as if I am offering excuses.”

In her most recent communication with the author, K confided that she had resigned and was presently working out her notice period.

Case Study 2: Experiences of a Gaming Industry Employee with the Manager-Unprofessional Conduct During Videoconferencing

The second case concerns an individual who is an employee of a gaming firm. She will be referred to as M. She takes care of weapon design in a warfare game, and she has been working in the gaming industry for the last 6 months. Before the announcement of lockdown in March 2020, M was working with the entire team on the night shift. After the lockdown, she started working from home with the same timings. Initially, M was very happy with the remote work situation. She had a toddler at home, and she felt she could spend more time with her child.

M’s discomfort began with the daily review meeting with her manager (who will be hereafter referred to as S). The review meetings were scheduled for the end of the day ostensibly to review the work completed in the day. M was working the night shift (1 PM to 10 PM). So daily report meetings inevitably took place after 10 p.m.

M realized that something was wrong when S showed up for the meeting 1 day with his shirt buttons undone and went shirtless the next day. She tried to keep the meeting short and kept her eyes on the notes.

“I was embarrassed at first, and I was not very familiar with the remote working protocol. I thought the manager was also confused about the protocol. But within a short time, I understood that something was not right.”

S continued to remain casually dressed during the Zoom meetings, and his remarks started becoming personal.

“At first, he asked me about work and how I responded to emails from the testing team. But slowly, he started making personal comments. He would ask me if I were in my nightdress. He would invariably make a comment on my appearance. In another instance, he asked me if I was working from the bedroom.”

M was not only uncomfortable but also felt stressed due to the harassment. She started dreading the review meetings and often made excuses to avoid them.

“I used to send a message citing a power cut or faulty Wi-Fi connection and get out of the meeting. My stress levels were very high. My personal life was also getting affected due to this harassment. My husband could sense that something was wrong.”

But M was not comfortable sharing any of these misbehaviors with her colleagues or her family members.

“I don’t want to bring in an escalation regarding the manager’s behavior with the HR. I feel that I will be seen as a provocative person.”

The breaking point was reached when S chaired a review meeting and was visibly drunk. He made several remarks about M’s personal appearance and her relationship with him. M was shocked at his appearance and behavior. She decided to report S’s behavior to the HR. Her emails to HR elicited no response.

“I called the HR manager personally and explained the incidents. There was a long pause after my narration. The HR manager said he would get back to me shortly. He has not done so. I decided to end this harassment by resigning.”

Both cases demonstrate bullying of employees by reporting managers in workplace situations and show discriminating behavior adopted by managers towards the subordinates. Analysis of the incidents and other information revealed that they fall within the parameters of workplace bullying and four different concepts related to workplace bullying in a remote environment. The case studies revealed the four components: negative behavior of the perpetrator, power imbalance between the bullying victim and perpetrator, duration and frequency of persistent negative behaviors of the perpetrator, and negative impacts of bullying on the victim (Einarsen et al.,  2009 ; Lee et al.,  2014 ; Medina et al.,  2020 ; Salin,  2021 ).

Negative Behavior of Perpetrator

This component of bullying involves a personal attack on the victim by the perpetrator, erosion of the victim’s professional competence and reputation, and attack through work roles and tasks. These acts are done with the intention to harm, control, or manipulate the victim. Perpetrators of bullying deliberately target other people, undermining their self-esteem and their work, and their acts are deliberate, not accidental (Saunders,  2007 ). Targets of workplace bullying can feel humiliated, ashamed, upset, anxious, and depressed.

In case 1, the perpetrator reported that she found the victim “not satisfactory as the team lead.” Prior to this comment, there is evidence that the perpetrator has deliberately tried to undermine the confidence and self-esteem of the victim. The victim was subjected to unwanted scrutiny and supervision during meetings with clients and team members. The victim’s authority was being undermined as a reporting authority with clients. Her role as a team leader was also under threat as the perpetrator was questioning the way K dealt with her team members in matters of attendance and performance. There was no evidence that K failed in team management or client handling, but A was undermining K’s role as a team leader with negative behavior.

Making insulting or offensive remarks about a person, attitudes or private life is considered a part of person-related bullying activity (Einarsen et al.,  2009 ). Studies on workplace bullying have shown that unpleasant personal remarks are among the most prevalent bullying behaviors (Tehrani,  2004 ). In case 2, the perpetrator made several personal comments about the victim’s attire and place of work. The professional dress code and professional behavior were not followed by the manager of the victim.

Power Imbalance Between Bullying Victim and Perpetrator

This component is of significance as it provides information about the imbalance of power. The power imbalance exists between the aggressor and the victim, where both are at different levels of the organizational hierarchical structure with well-defined reporting structures. The imbalance of power is central to the bullying episodes and the entire concept of bullying. Most of the bullying has been reported to be perpetrated by a person in the higher authority in the organizational structure towards someone at the lower end of the structure (Branch et al., 2013 ). The power gap limits the victim’s capability to resist, defend, or effectively cope with the bullying behaviors (Zapf & Einarsen,  2001 ). In both cases, the aggressors or perpetrators were the reporting authority of the victims.

In case 1, the aggressor was the product manager, and the victim was the team lead reporting to the product manager. The victim was the recipient of negative behaviors by the product manager who is her immediate reporting authority. Though she was under stress due to the bullying behaviors, she did not escalate the matter to the higher authorities and did not confront the perpetrator. All of this is characteristic of response to bullying behaviors. As pointed out by Salin ( 2021 ), a power deficit in a professional relationship makes the individual more sensitive to perceived threats and, in turn, may restrict his or her capability to cope and resist the bullying behaviors exhibited by a reporting authority.

In case 2, the aggressor was the team leader, and the victim was his team member, reporting to him. Despite repeated instances of inappropriate remarks about her dress and person, the victim neither shared the experiences with her family nor with the HR personnel. It was only after the situation deteriorated rapidly, the victim tried to escalate the matter. The victim’s reluctance to deal with the bullying in an assertive and timely manner resulted in limited and unsatisfactory results. This kind of reluctant behavior may be attributed to the way employees look at bullying. As pointed out by Tehrani ( 2004 ), bullying is a private event.

Duration and Frequency of Persistent Negative Behaviors of the Perpetrator

Many of the definitions of workplace bullying include the criterion that a behavior cannot be a standalone event. Bullying must occur more than once and must be experienced by the target on a frequent and persistent basis (Einarsen et al.,  2009 ).

In other words, the occurrence of persistent negative behavior once or twice every week for a period of 6 to 12 months and further is mandatory for the behavior to be labeled as bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen,  2012 ). One-off clashes and incidents resulting from workplace incivility and intra-employee conflicts take place routinely at the workplace, but they are not seen to produce long-lasting and severe consequences such as bullying behaviors (Kim et al.,  2019 ).

In both cases described in this paper, it is clear that the behaviors are not one-off clashes and are not spur-of-the-moment events but were reported to be repetitive and frequent. The negative behavior of the perpetrator towards the victim had been happening frequently many times a week. The negative behaviors were present at the time of starting the interviews with the case subjects and continued till the end of the interview (from the first reach out in Aug. 2020 till the last contact in June 2021).

In case 1, the victim experienced repeated instances of fault-finding, undermining the leadership skills, and interference. The incidents began after 1 month of working together and continued for more than 6 months. The victim decided to quit after experiencing various bullying incidents for more than 11 months.

In case 2, the victim reported the occurrence of incidents in June 2020, and they continued till February 2021, for a period of 10 months. The victim experienced incidents of uncalled for personal remarks and intimidating and unprofessional behavior from the reporting officer.

Negative Impacts of Bullying on the Victim

Almost every study on workplace bullying has focused on the effects of bullying on employees (Einarsen et al.,  2020 , p147). Attendance, turnover, and productivity have been shown to be adversely affected by incidents of bullying in the workplace (Einarsen et al.,  2020 ). Earlier studies have also documented the increased utilization of sick leave and the prevalence of suicidal tendencies in bullied employees (Vartia,  2001 ). Bullying behavior has been consistently shown to negatively impact the employee physically, psychologically, and occupationally (Rai & Agarwal,  2018 ; Robert, 2018 ).

In the first case, the victim was experiencing mental stress due to the bullying actions of the manager, and she was being damaged career-wise; she was being portrayed as an inefficient team leader. These kinds of negative comments could have a detrimental effect on the victim’s future career path.

In case 2, the aggressor was causing mental stress to the victim who was deliberately missing meetings with him. The victim also experienced mental anguish due to his unprofessional behavior which created problems between the victim and her family.

In both cases, the victims decided to resign from their job, which is a common result of workplace bullying (Notelaers et al.,  2019 ) (Table 5 ).

The negative consequences of workplace bullying are summarized in eight factors (Medina et al.,  2020 , p 8) as displayed in Table 6 .

The role of the HR departments of both case subjects has been taken into consideration in this study. When contacted by the author, the HR in case 1 revealed that the firm does not have a work-from-home policy document in place and one such is in the pipeline. She, however, denied any knowledge of the issues between the aggressor and the victim. She also revealed that the organization had a Sexual Harassment Cell (SHC) which was constituted in 2019 and it was functional. Regarding the WFH arrangement, the organization issued certain dos and don’ts regarding the log-in and log-out for work and rules regarding data privacy.

The HR manager of the organization in case 2 did not respond to emails from the author. The victim reported that the HR had given a patient hearing regarding her complaints against the manager but failed to take any corrective action.

Considering case 2, the form of bullying faced by the victim is unique in several ways. One is the workplace environment. As a result of the lockdown imposed in India, employees were mandated to work from home. As stated by the HR executive of the organization in case 1, the protocols required to manage the WFH situations were yet to be implemented. It is evident that the victims and their managers are in a new work environment and are in the process of getting oriented to the new way of working and communication. Due to the imposition of the national lockdown, employees had to adapt quickly to WFH, and the identification of obstacles and enablers to employees’ well-being and job performance was a priority for many organizations (Galanti et al.,  2021 ). The HR executive of the organization in case 2 revealed that the WFH guidelines issued to employees included details of log-in and log-out but did not contain any dress code and other guidelines to be adopted during interactions.

The other unique aspect of remote environments is the enabling of face-to-face interactions between the team members and their managers in WFH situations. The one-to-one interaction between employees is mandatory for the purpose of communication or problem-solving, and it enables sharing of personal space between the individuals. Without proper protocols in place, there is a high possibility that the sharing of personal environments could be misused which is evident in case 2.

The present study combines the perspectives of bullying in the physical workplace with that of cyberbullying to understand the concept of bullying in the remote workplace.

One of the contributions of this study is the development of the concept of workplace bullying in a remote environment, especially in the context of employees working from home. Despite the absence of face-to-face interactions and a focus on technology-mediated communication, work-from-home situations were found to be highly susceptible to workplace bullying. This is in accordance with the view that the nature of virtual work increases the likelihood of bullying (Flanigan,  2020 ). Though remote working is linked to improved productivity, job satisfaction, and work engagement, remote workers are likely to be subjected to frequent and relentless bullying at the workplace and face considerable stress (Yom et al.,  2017a ).

The study also revealed that bullying experienced by employees working from home displayed all the characteristics of traditional workplace bullying (Einarsen et al.,  2009 ; Lee et al.,  2014 ).

The employees observed in this study were subject to repeated and persistent negative behaviors that are aggressive or appear to be aggressive to the victim. This is in line with the observed manifestation of traditional workplace bullying (Einarsen et al.,  2020 ; Leymann, 1990 ,  1996 ).

The bullying episodes analyzed in the present study show a clear power imbalance between bullying victim and perpetrator. The victims are at a lower hierarchical level in comparison to the aggressor. The presence of an imbalance in power between the aggressor and the victim has been shown to be crucial to the concept of workplace bullying (Chirilă & Constantin, 2013 ; Einarsen et al.,  2009 ). The power imbalance in workplaces could result due to individual, situational, or societal characteristics (Salin,  2003 ). But the present study involves cases that depict the imbalance of power due to organizational hierarchical structure.

As both victims are women, a tendency to attribute the occurrence of bullying incidents to gender differences does arise. But previous studies on bullying and gender have cautioned not to look for a linear relationship between gender and bullying but rather as a “gendered context” (Salin,  2021 , p 24). More in-depth studies would be needed to study the relationship between bullying tendencies and gender in remote environments.

The negative impacts of bullying are experienced by both employees and the organization. The employee who is the victim experiences psychological and physical health issues, and the organization suffers from employee attrition, along with losses in terms of reputation and legal charges (Srivastava & Agarwal,  2020 ). In case 1, the employee’s capabilities were being questioned and the bullying incidents brought in emotional exhaustion in the employee.

Previous studies have noted that there is a gradual build-up of bullying incidents and victims take time to report (Palmer,  2021 ).

“At first, he asked me about work and how I responded to emails from the testing team. But slowly he started making personal comments.”

The targets of bullying behavior in organizations generally hesitate to complain to the relevant authorities (Palmer,  2021 ). This tendency was observed in the respondents of both cases detailed in this paper.

In the cases presented in the study, both the victims suffered from severe mental stress and were exiting the organization. The organization experienced a loss of a talented workforce.

The study contributes to the study of the remote environment in terms of the parameters used to analyze the effect of bullying. The work-from-home situated mandated due to the COVID-19 situation has blurred the boundaries between home and work, and this has led to changes in work culture (Waizenegger et al.,  2020 ). The assessment incorporated the technology-mediated communication channels and the changes in the work culture that is a part of the work-from-home environment (Karl et al.,  2021 ). The increased use of videoconferencing for communication has provided opportunities for bullying of the employees as seen in case 2. The face-to-face meetings of the traditional workplace have given way to video conferences which have their own set of problems as seen in case 1.

The role of organizations in the management of workplace bullying assumes high significance. Both the organizations featured in the paper had no clear HR policy against bullying. As pointed out by Verma and Barua ( 2021 ), workplace bullying in India is generally actionable under the law only if the bullying behavior is directed against certain vulnerable sections of society or can be classified as abetment to suicide. Noopur and Burman ( 2021 ) noted that the increasing prevalence of work bullying is common in Information Technology (IT) organizations and has a psychological and physical impact on employees; hence, employers must acknowledge and accept the existence of the bullying phenomenon. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (POSH) is the main policy awarding protection against harassment in the Indian workplace, which the HR experts say needs clarification on its validity in the remote workplace, thus creating a lacuna (Poonia,  2019 ). If the work-from-home situation is likely to continue post-pandemic (even partially), there is a need for a full-fledged policy against workplace bullying in the remote environment from both the government and organizations (Jain,  2018 ).

Limitations and Further Research

The paper suffers from the usual disadvantages that are observed in a case study-based approach to research (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2001 ; Zainal,  2007 ). The paper presents only two instances of workplace bullying which cannot be generalized to the entire remote environment in India at present. However, the cases are indicative of the scope and nature of bullying in this environment and offer an opportunity for further investigation into the concept and forms of bullying in the remote workplace.

Further research is required into the phenomenon of bullying in the remote environment in order to obtain an understanding of the elements of abusive supervision (Tepper,  2000 ) on workplace harassment.

As it appears that the work-from-home situation is here to stay, more research needs to be done to understand the scope and forms of bullying that can manifest in a remote workplace. This will help policymakers to create an appropriate regulatory framework for effective and safe workplace creation.

55% Indian employees bullied at work: Effects of workplace bullying and how to address the issue. (2020, December). https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/jobs-and-careers/story/55-indian-employees-bullied-at-work-effects-of-workplace-bullying-and-how-to-address-the-issue-1752096-2020-12-22

Barbosa, M. W., & Ferreira-Lopes, L. (2021). Emerging trends in telecollaboration and virtual exchange: A bibliometric study. Educational Review , 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1907314

Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13 (1), 69–84.

Article   Google Scholar  

Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15 (3), 280–299.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (Eds.). (2018). Cyberbullying at university in international contexts.  Routledge.

Chan, T. K., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, Z. W. (2020). Cyberbullying on social networking sites: A literature review and future research directions. Information & Management, 58 (2), 103411.

Chirilă, T., & Constantin, T. (2013). Understanding workplace bullying phenomenon through its concepts: A literature review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84 , 1175–1179.

Conway, P. M., Høgh, A., Balducci, C., & Ebbesen, D. K. (2021). Workplace bullying and mental health. In Pathways of job-related negative behaviour. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment  (Vol. 2). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0935-9_5

Craig, W., Boniel-Nissim, M., King, N., Walsh, S. D., Boer, M., Donnelly, P. D., & Pickett, W. (2020). Social media use and cyber-bullying: A cross-national analysis of young people in 42 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health , 66 (6, Supplement), S100–S108, ISSN 1054-139X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.03.006

Czakert, J. P., Reif, J., Glazer, S., & Berger, R. (2021). Adaptation and psychometric cross- cultural validation of a workplace cyberbullying questionnaire in Spain and Germany. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24 (12), 831–838.

D’Cruz, P. (2016). Cyberbullying at work: Experiences of Indian employees. In J. Webster, & K. Randle (Eds.),  Virtual workers and the global labour market . London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47919-8_12

D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2018a). Target experiences of workplace bullying on online labor markets: Uncovering the nuances of resilience. Employee Relations., 40 (1), 139–154.

D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2018b). Target experiences of workplace bullying on online labour markets: Uncovering the nuances of resilience. Employee Relations, 40 (1), 139–154.

Darics, E., & Cristina Gatti, M. (2019). Talking a team into being in online workplace collaborations: The discourse of virtual work. Discourse Studies, 21 (3), 237–257.

Davenport, T. H., & Pearlson, K. (1998). Two cheers for the virtual office. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39 (4), 51.

Google Scholar  

Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2003). The physical and psychological effects of workplace bullying and their relationship to intention to leave: A test of the psychosomatic and disability hypotheses. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 7 (4), 469–497.

Dubey, A. D., & Tripathi, S. (2020). Analyzing the sentiments towards work-from-home experience during covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Innovation Management, 8 (1), 13–19.

Dutcher, E. G., & Saral, K. J. (2012). Does team telecommuting affect productivity? An experiment. Working papers in economics and statistics. (No. 2012-22). University of Innsbruck, Research Platform Empirical and Experimental Economics (eeecon), Innsbruck.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5 (4), 379–401.

Einarsen, S. V., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, 3e . CRC press.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23 (1), 24–44.

Erwandi, D., Kadir, A., & Lestari, F. (2021). Identification of workplace bullying: Reliability and validity of Indonesian version of the negative acts questionnaire-revised (NAQ-R). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (8), 3985.

Ezerins, M. E., & Ludwig, T. D. (2021). A behavioral analysis of incivility in the virtual workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 1–24.

Farley, S., Coyne, I., Axtell, C., & Sprigg, C. (2016). Design, development and validation of a workplace cyberbullying measure, the WCM. Work & Stress, 30 (4), 293–317.

Feijó, F. R., Gräf, D. D., Pearce, N., & Fassa, A. G. (2019). Risk factors for workplace bullying: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (11), 1945.

Flanigan, P. (2020). Understanding the bullying experiences of virtual workers, dt.athabascau.ca , dissertation and thesis repository, Athabasca University. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from  http://hdl.handle.net/10791/327

Flores, M. F. (2019). Understanding the challenges of remote working and its impact to workers’. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management (IJBMM), 4 (11), 40–44.

Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63 (7), e426.

Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001). The strengths and limitations of case study research. In  Learning and skills development agency conference at Cambridge  (Vol. 1, pp. 5–7).

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Organizational effects of workplace bullying.  Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, 3e . CRC Press.

Howard-Grenville, J. (2020). How to sustain your organization’s culture when everyone is remote. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62 (1), 1–4.

Hsu, F.-S., Liu, Y.-A., & Tsaur, S.-H. (2019). The impact of workplace bullying on hotel employees’ well-being: Do organizational justice and friendship matter? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31 (4), 1702–1719.

Irawanto, D. W., Novianti, K. R., & Roz, K. (2021). Work from home: Measuring satisfaction between work–life balance and work stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Economies, 9 (3), 96.

Jain, A. (2018). Workplace Bullying in India: The current policy context, implications and future directions. Indian perspectives on workplace bullying (pp. 237–263). Springer.

Janene-Nelson, K., & Sutherland, L. (2020). Work together anywhere: A handbook on working remotely-successfully-for individuals, teams, and managers (pp. 91–97). John Wiley & Sons.

Kamara, A. M. (2020). The role of anonymous content type in cyberbullying (Doctoral dissertation, Publication No. 28149253). Colorado Technical University, Proquest.

Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Aghakhani, N. (2021). Virtual work meetings during the COVID- 19 pandemic: The good, bad, and ugly. Small Group Research, 53 (3), 343–365.

Kaushik, M., & Guleria, N. (2020). The impact of pandemic COVID-19 in workplace. European Journal of Business and Management, 12 (15), 1–10.

Keskin, H., Akgün, A. E., Ayar, H., & Kayman, ŞS. (2016). Cyberbullying victimization, counterproductive work behaviors and emotional intelligence at workplace. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235 , 281–287.

Kim, Y., Lee, E., & Lee, H. (2019). Association between workplace bullying and burnout, professional quality of life, and turnover intention among clinical nurses. PLoS ONE, 14 (12), e0226506.

Lee, Y. J., Bernstein, K., Lee, M., & Nokes, K. M. (2014). Bullying in the nursing workplace: Applying evidence using a conceptual framework. Nursing Economics, 32 (5), 255.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5 (2), 119–126.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 165–184.

Liefooghe, A. P., & Olafsson, R. (1999). “Scientists” and “amateurs”: Mapping the bullying domain. International Journal of Manpower, 20 (1/2), 39–49.

Loh, J., & Snyman, R. (2020). The tangled web: Consequences of workplace cyberbullying in adult male and female employees. Gender in Management, 35 (6), 567–584.

Medina, A., Lopez, E., & Medina, R. (2020). The unethical managerial behaviors and abusive use of power in downwards vertical workplace bullying: A phenomenological case study. Social Sciences, 9 (6), 110.

Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management., 12 (3), 212–238.

Nash, E. C. (2019). Is mobile work really location-independent? The role of space in the work of digital nomads.  Honors Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Digital Repository.

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta- analytic review. Work & Stress, 26 (4), 309–332.

Noopur, & Burman, R. (2021). Role of perceived HRM toward workplace bullying and turnover intention: Mediating role of resilience and psychological health. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 13 (4), 433–451.

Notelaers, G., Törnroos, M., & Salin, D. (2019). Effort-reward imbalance: A risk factor for exposure to workplace bullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 386.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42 (5), 533–544.

Palmer, S. J. (2021). Workplace bullying: A sad but common occurrence in the NHS. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants, 15 (10), 500–504.

Ponelis, S. R. (2015). Using interpretive qualitative case studies for exploratory research in doctoral studies: A case of information systems research in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10 (1), 535–550.

Poonia, A. (2019). Sexual harassment at workplace. Amity International Journal of Juridical Sciences, 5 (1), 50–60.

Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12 , 395–400.

Purwanto, A., Asbari, M., Fahlevi, M., Mufid, A., Agistiawati, E., Cahyono, Y., & Suryani, P. (2020). Impact of work from home (WFH) on Indonesian teachers’ performance during the Covid-19 pandemic: An exploratory study. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29 (5), 6235–6244.

Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2018). Workplace bullying and employee silence: A moderated mediation model of psychological contract violation and workplace friendship. Personnel Review, 47 (1), 226–256.

Reknes, I., Notelaers, G., Iliescu, D., & Einarsen, S. V. (2021). The influence of target personality in the development of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26 (4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000272

Reworking Work Understanding the Rise of Work Anywhere. (2021). Retrieved November 29, 2022, from https://mms.businesswire.com/media/20201007005330/en/828185/1/4275411cReworking_Work_Atlassian_and_PaperGiant_en.pdf

Robert, F. (2018). Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress. Journal of Management Info, 5 (3), 12–15.

Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (2001). Co-constructing non-mutual realities: Delay-generated trouble in distributed interaction. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 10 (1), 113–138.

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.

Salin, D. (2021). Workplace bullying and gender: An overview of empirical findings. In P. D'Cruz, E. Noronha, C. Caponecchia, J. Escartín, D. Salin, M. R. Tuckey (Eds.),  Dignity and inclusion at work. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment  (Vol. 3). Singapore: Springer.

Salonen, M. (2017). Conflicts in workplace in technology-mediated communication . Masters Dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, JYX Digital Repository for Theses

Saunders, P. (2007). The influence of behavioral, individual and contextual variables on the perception and labelling of workplace bullying behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, Doctoral dissertation). School of Psychology, University of New South Wales)

Srivastava, S., & Agarwal, S. (2020). Workplace bullying and intention to leave: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and supervisory support. Employee Relations, 42 (6), 1547–1563.

Stich, J. F. (2020). A review of workplace stress in the virtual office. Intelligent Buildings International, 12 (3), 208–220.

Sundin, K. (2010). Virtual teams: Work/life challenges-keeping remote employees engaged. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from  Ecommons.cornell.edu

Swain, V. D., Saha, K., Abowd, G. D., & De Choudhury, M. (2020, October). Social media and ubiquitous technologies for remote worker wellbeing and productivity in a post- pandemic world. In  2020 IEEE Second International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (CogMI)  (pp. 121–130). IEEE.

Szczyglowski, K. (2018). Empathy suppressing the facilitative effects of anonymity on cyberbullying. Western Undergraduate Psychology Journal , 6 (1), 1–9.

Tehrani, N. (2004). Bullying: A source of chronic post-traumatic stress? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32 (3), 357–366.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 178–190.

The future of work after COVID-19. (2021). https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19

Timonen, H., & Vuori, J. (2018, January). Visibility of work: How digitalization changes the workplace. In  Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences  (pp. 5075–5084). http://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/159765

Treinen, J. J., & Miller-Frost, S. L. (2006). Following the sun: Case studies in global software development. IBM Systems Journal, 45 (4), 773–783.

Uludasdemir, D., & Kucuk, S. (2019). Cyber bullying experiences of adolescents and parental awareness: Turkish example. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 44 , e84–e90.

Vartia, M. A. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27 , (1), 63–69. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967116

Verma, A., & Barua, M. P. (2021). Workplace bullying in medical institutions: Response toKarpagam. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6 (1), 1–3.

Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 29 (4), 429–442.

Wang, C. W., Musumari, P. M., Techasrivichien, T., et al. (2019). Overlap of traditional bullying and cyberbullying and correlates of bullying among Taiwanese adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health , 19 , 1756.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-8116-z

Willard, N. (2006). Electronic bullying and cyber threats: Responding to the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress . Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.

Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress . Research press.

Yom, Y. H., Yang, I. S., & Han, J. H. (2017). Effects of workplace bullying, job stress, self-esteem, and burnout on the intention of university hospital nurses to keep nursing job. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, 23 (3), 259–269.

Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9 , 1–6.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and practice− an introduction. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 10 (4), 369–373.

Zhang, Z., Xiao, H., Zhang, L., & Zheng, J. (2021). Linking cyberbullying to job strain: Roles of ego depletion and self-efficacy. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 1-18.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful to the reviewers for their value-adding and insightful suggestions and comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty Member, IFHE, Hyderabad, India

Satyalakshmi Kompella

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satyalakshmi Kompella .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Appendix. A Study On Workplace Bullying

Thank you for consenting to answer the questionnaire on workplace bullying. The questions elicit responses on various aspects of bullying. The data will be used for academic purposes only, and all the details of the respondent will be kept confidential.

Are you working from home due to COVID-19 lockdown?

Your age (in years)

Your gender

Sector where you are working

Are you bullied at work?

No/Yes, rarely/Yes, often/Yes, everyday/Do not want to answer.

When did the bullying start?

Less than a month ago/Between 1 and 3 months/Between 3 and 6 months/Going on from a long time/Do not remember.

Identity of the bully Manager/colleague/subordinate/other

Number of people bullied

Only me/Me and others/Everybody at work/Did not notice.

Have you witnessed bullying at work? Yes/No/Do not want to answer

Based on your replies, can the author of this questionnaire reach out to you for further questions?

Yes/No (if yes, please provide your email id for further communication).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kompella, S. Persisting Menace: A Case-Based Study of Remote Workplace Bullying in India. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00152-8

Download citation

Accepted : 11 November 2022

Published : 19 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00152-8

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

• Remote workplace
• Communications
• Power imbalance
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Bullying in the Workplace – A Case Study

By: Chris Potter

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. It turns out that Susan was the victim of a growing problem for many – bullying in the workplace. This is her story of how it happened and how she got through it, which she has chosen to share to educate others who might be suffering similar.

(Worry you too are dealing with a workplace bully? Read our guide to workplace bullying to learn more).

*name changed to protect privacy

“i was the victim of a workplace bully”.

“I had been over the moon to finally get offered a job I really wanted, as a PR and communications assistant for an environmental company. But I had only been in my my job for a few months when I realised that my line manager was becoming gradually more hostile towards me.

She started nitpicking every piece of work I did, sometimes requesting that I start large tasks again from scratch. I remember the first time, when I wrote an article and she gave it back with two small mistakes circled and a note ‘check grammar’, but not a jot of other positive or constructive feedback. I thought she must have been rushed that day, but that was generally the way it kept going. I rarely had any support or feedback from her unless she felt I’d made a mistake.

Whenever I tried to raise any ideas of my own, she would treat me in a condescending manner and refuse to take me seriously. I also started to be moved off tasks which fit my skill set to menial jobs which no one else wanted to do. Suddenly I was no longer writing press releases but doing data entry! When I tried to request that there be more time for me to focus on my strengths, I was told that it wasn’t her priority.

It got worse. She repeatedly accused me of not doing what was asked of me or of making mistakes that I hadn’t made. Even when I knew I could prove her wrong, it felt petty to have to go to such lengths to do this. And then she would do things almost as if she wanted to find ways to see me fail. She’d ask me to answer all calls for the entire office right when I was working on an assignment, and when that predictably meant the article wasn’t written by the end of the day, she’d make out I hadn’t been working hard enough!

It all conspired to make me feel really miserable and suddenly the job I had always wanted turned into me dreading going to work every morning.

I felt confused as to why my manager rarely seemed to have any faith in me. Over time I lost all confidence in my ability to do anything properly; she made me feel like I was actually as useless as she was treating me.

“I tried to figure out why my manager was bullying me”

By: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I think she sometimes saw me as being a bit of a threat. She was particularly hostile towards me whenever I appeared to know more about something than she did. Once, when she was stuck trying to help one of my colleagues with a task, I politely offered a solution. It turned out to be correct, but I didn’t receive any thanks. She looked absolutely furious and wouldn’t speak to me for the rest of the day.

“The bullying began to affect my health and my social life”

As well as dealing with the emotional side of being bullied, there were growing physical symptoms. I was beginning to suffer with tiredness, often feeling so fatigued that I would need to go to bed as soon as I got home from work. I experienced headaches and nausea, sometimes to the point where I would throw up from feeling dizzy. It was a long time before I connected the frequency of these feelings to the things I was experiencing at work.

As for my social life, I stopped wanting to do things I used to enjoy, like going out with my friends and exercising. It was like all my confidence was gone and I was tired, so I just wanted to stay at home. My partner certainly noticed that I wasn’t well. I talked to him a lot, he was really my rock.

The truth is, I felt like I couldn’t tell my friends or family what was happening. I had spent so long trying to build up a career from almost nothing (graduating during the recession meant there were hardly any opportunities for me) and they had been so proud when I got the job, that I felt ashamed to admit that it was going so badly.

My partner began urging me to leave after I had been there for a year but I didn’t think we could afford it. It didn’t help that I started to apply for other jobs and didn’t get anything, so felt even worse. Of course now, looking back, I can see it is just the way the job market was at the time, but back then I was sure there was something wrong with me.

“Eventually I started to think I was going crazy…”

It began to get to the point where I felt like I was going crazy. I knew that my manager had a problem with me but all of her behaviour was subtle enough not to be noticed by other members of staff. We worked in a very small team and (outwardly, at least) everyone seemed to get on very well. I felt under pressure not to ‘rock the boat’ and felt that no one would believe me if I told the truth. I hoped that if I could only keep working as hard as I could, she would stop treating me so badly.

I would get angry, but the anger couldn’t go anywhere, so it just translated into more negative thoughts about myself. I was swinging between feeling like everything was all my fault then feeling furious.

When I went to see a counsellor , it was such a relief. I can’t tell you what a big help it was to have someone listen once a week and provide me with support when I decided to leave.

By: Alan Cleaver

“I had to decide whether to stay or go”

Things didn’t improve and I finally decided my only option was to leave. The final straw came when I accidentally saw some emails between my manager and other members of staff, including the director of the company. I say accidentally, but it was more on a quick instinct. Basically, I was looking in my colleague’s email account for some information for a piece. We had each other’s passwords and often looked in each others account if we needed to see some correspondence. But something in me told me to search for my name.

I felt sick to read emails that contained personal judgements about my behaviour and attitude and gave an entirely negative impression of who I was. My manager had even accused me of lying about a dispute over holiday pay, copying in everyone on staff, can you imagine?! I realised that she had been sending these messages behind my back for some time and that everyone in the office, including some new members of staff, had had their opinions shaped by them.

It was seriously shocking, as for so long I had veered between thinking it was really going on and then thinking maybe it was in my head. But there is was, my proof. I couldn’t really admit to having seen the emails so I snuck off and called my partner for support.

I decided it was too late for me to try and undo the damage so I quit the very next day. I wrote a short letter, printed it off, and bought it the office. My manager was actually surprised. I didn’t bother to tell her why I was leaving, and a part of me thinks she was so much in denial about her behaviour she might have actually been surprised.

“Did I make the right decision?”

It wasn’t fair that I had to leave my job, and I know for many others they seek legal help, but I know that for me, I made the right decision. I guess I also didn’t look into the legal side because really, would I be able to say anything illegal happened? I just worked for a small team that had a not very nice manager who happened to single me out. Maybe because I was the most recent hired and the lowest paid, the last in the pecking order. Or because she needed someone to shift the spotlight away from her own mistakes and I was the most amenable.

What mattered was that I needed to protect my health and to seek a more rewarding job somewhere else. I feel relieved not to be working there anymore and I’m starting to regain my confidence and self-esteem through writing and voluntary work. I don’t regret leaving – unfortunately, the odds were stacked against me. I’m now trying to look forward to a role where my hard work will be valued.

My biggest regret is not that I didn’t tell off my manager when I quit, but that I didn’t know about workplace bullying sooner, and the insidious way it can operate. If I had of known, I would have felt less alone. Maybe I could have even presented my thoughts to my manager and tried to resolve something. That’s why I’m sharing my story, in the hopes others read it and it helps them make a bad workplace situation better.”

Are YOU a victim of bullying in the workplace?

Susan quit her job, but you don’t have to. Learn the signs and symptoms of bullying in the workplace, as well as how you can deal with it before it gets worse, by reading our guide to bullying in the workplace which also includes a list of useful resources. Have you you experienced bullying in the workplace and want to share your story? Or want to comment on something we’ve said? Use the box below, we love hearing your feedback. Want to know when we post more useful content like this? Sign up to our community up above!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Related Posts

• Skip to Navigation
• Skip to Search
• Skip to Main Content

The State election will be held on Saturday 26 November 2022. During the caretaker period (commencing 6.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November 2022) content will only be added to this website in line with the  caretaker conventions .

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.

Introduction

Workplace bullying affects the health and wellbeing of staff and the productivity of organisations. It is hard – but not impossible – to tackle.

Organisation A – Be willing to ‘send a strong message’ to your organisation

‘Organisation A’, a Melbourne based organisation with fewer than 100 staff, had its bullying levels peak in 2014. One in five staff reported they had experienced bullying.

Organisation B – ‘Walk the talk’ the importance of leaders living the values

The small organisation with fewer than 100 staff once had very low rates of perceived bullying (11 per cent) – half its sector’s average rate of 22 per cent. However, the rate spiked suddenly.

Organisation C – Making sure ‘every voice has the same volume’

This metropolitan Melbourne entity with fewer than 200 staff, had nearly a quarter of employees experiencing bullying. The problem was coming from the highest levels.

Organisation D – ‘Communication, Communication, Communication’

‘Organisation D’ and its 500 plus mainly Melbourne based staff have been through considerable change and long periods of uncertainty, which affected workplace culture.

Organisation E – Redefining the ‘symbols and rituals’ of organisation culture

Bullying had fluctuated in ‘Organisation E’ for a while but when one in three staff started experiencing bullying, the issue could not be ignored.

Reviewed 2 September 2022

Published 23 June 2022

• (02) 8007 7474

CASE STUDIES IN BULLYING & HARASSMENT LAW

Training Courses

The legal duty to protect workers.

In accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, businesses are under a legal duty of care to protect their employees’ health and safety at work, including an obligation to protect the psychological health of their staff.

Exemplified by the below examples, there have been numerous cases in which the courts have found against employers and awarded compensation to employees for the psychological impact of workplace bullying and harassment, due to the employer’s negligence in failing to meet this duty of care.

These cases highlight the responsibility on employers to  address bullying and harassment  complaints seriously and appropriately, and to ensure that employee wellbeing is not put at risk by the workplace environment. They also emphasise the need for businesses to be both pro-active and re-active in addressing matters of workplace bullying.

CASE STUDY 1 M V WINSLOW CONSTRUCTORS (VIC) PTY LTS [2015] VSC 728 .

Summary:  A female labourer at a construction company in Melbourne suffered psychiatric injuries following abuse, bullying and sexual harassment. She sued her employer for negligence in failing to provide a safe working environment, and was awarded $1.36 million.

The labourer endured sexually explicit remarks and threatening comments like “I will take you into the container and f*** you” and “anything that bleeds once a month should be shot”. A co-worker once grabbed her by the hips and simulated a sex act on her. She was reluctant to complain to her foreman, as he was also responsible for some offensive remarks, having called her “useless”, a “spastic” and a “bimbo”.

She reported a rape threat to the person responsible for HR, who invited her to “come to my place… we will have a drink and talk about it”. She then received an anonymous call from a male calling her “a c***”. She did not return to work after this.

The labourer suffered psychiatric injuries including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.  The Supreme Court of Victoria found the employer to be negligent in allowing the woman to be subjected to extensive bullying and harassment.

CASE STUDY 2 KEEGAN V SUSSAN CORPORATION (AUST.) PTY LTD [2014] QSC 64 .

Summary:  A Queensland employee lodged a negligence claim against her employer after she experienced bullying and harassment by her store manager resulting in psychiatric injury. She was awarded $237,770 in damages.

After returning from maternity leave, the employee endured exclusion from business discussions, unwarranted criticism of past and present performance, and was repeatedly spoken to in an ‘aggressive and nasty’ tone by her store manager.

The employee informed the State Business Manager that she was being bullied, and was told to “put some lippy on” and “go home to your bub”. The employee made a further bullying complaint several days later and was told to “work it out herself”. She was subsequently diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and filed a negligence claim.

The Queensland Supreme Court held that the employer did not comply with its own Bullying and Harassment Policy, and failed to treat the complaint with appropriate seriousness and confidentiality. The Court concluded that psychiatric injury would have occurred as a result of the employer’s failure to handle the complaint in accordance with the policy, and as such, the employer had breached its duty of care.

CASE STUDY 3 BAILEY V PEAKHURST BOWLING & RECREATION CLUB LTD [2009] NSWDC 284 (NSW DISTRICT COURT, LEVY SC DCJ, 3 NOVEMBER 2009).

Summary:  An employee received $507,550 in compensation following persistent harassment, intimidation and bullying by her supervisor.

Over a two-year period, the employee endured vulgar language, threats that she would lose her job, pressure to break liquor licensing rules, pressure to resign her union membership, changes in her work classification such that she lost pay and seniority, and underpayment of wages.

The treatment of this employee by her supervisor damaged her mental health and she was referred to a psychologist. She was diagnosed with Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. Her prognosis suggested it was unlikely that she would return to paid employment.

The District Court of New South Wales concluded that the employer had breached its duty of care to provide a safe work place, and awarded damaged.

CASE STUDY 4 STATE OF NSW V MANNALL (OCTOBER 25 2005) NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL.

Summary:  An employee received compensation for psychiatric injury resulting from persistent bullying following her promotion to a management position. She was awarded $339,722 in damages.

The employee did not receive any management training prior to her promotion, and other employees responded with bitterness and resentment about the removal of the previous team leader. The employee endured increasingly hostile behaviour, including spreading rumours, disobeying requests, making offensive and vindictive comments, and a failure to provide assistance during busy periods.

The team members eventually convened a meeting (to which the employee was not invited), and drafted a document listing complaints against the new team leader, which was given to her manager. The manager accepted the document and refused to intervene when requested to do so by the employee. The employee also sought assistance from other managers who failed to intervene.

The employee eventually left the position due to the development of psychiatric conditions, including anxiety and depression.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found the employer to be negligent in its duty of care to create a safe working environment; the managers involved had the capacity to take preventative action, but failed to do so.

Related Articles

• Bullying & Harassment Awareness Training
• Bullying & Harassment Defined
• Reasonable Management Action

Contact us today to discuss your Corporate Workshop needs.

“What fantastic training provided on mental health in the workplace and the importance of educating and empowering our staff on this topic. The team thoroughly enjoyed the workshop which was engaging and lead by the fantastic Katherine Wagner. Thank you Associated EAP.”

Philip Divilly

Managing Director, Quay Appointments

Let us tailor an Employee Support package for your business

[email protected]

Call us (02) 8007 7474

Employee Assistance Programs for organisations big and small.

Privacy Policy

Corporate Training

© 2021 Associated Employee Assistance Program 411/185 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 (02) 8007 7474

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 4, 287 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000

1800 952 947

[email protected]

• Privacy Policy

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

Integrity Line

Challenges in seeking justice for victims of bullying and harassment

There are still significant barriers to seeking justice for those who have suffered bullying and sexual harassment in the workplace. Changes in law are needed, argues Thomas Beale, partner at Bolt Burdon Kemp

There has been a recent surge in positive advancements to workers’ rights in the UK.

The pending enactment of the Worker Protection Act 2023, and the new government’s proposed Plan to Make Work Pay, are seeking to make significant improvements to the effectiveness of employment tribunals, facilitating the pursuit of justice for victims of workplace harassment through this route. Although these developments are highly commendable, it is important to acknowledge that the tribunal route may not always be the most suitable recourse for victims of workplace bullying and harassment.

Claimants may find that bringing a claim against their employer in the civil courts is more attractive, as it offers more generous time limits and is less punitive in terms of legal costs than the employment tribunal. However, despite these advantages, there are significant challenges associated with seeking justice through civil routes that remain unaddressed.

Through our Manifesto for Injured People, Bolt Burdon Kemp (BBK) aims to shed light on two key policy gaps exacerbating this issue:

• The absence of a legal definition of bullying • Limited awareness of the civil claims route

Case Study – facts of the case

A recent case handled by BBK underscores the urgency of addressing these gaps. This case involved a claimant who pursued a personal injury claim against her employer following a traumatic sexual assault following leaving drinks after work.

The claimant, an administrative assistant who had only been with her employer for two weeks, received an invite to a leaving party for a colleague via her work email. The party took place at a local pub and, upon her arrival, the claimant was offered numerous alcoholic drinks by her colleagues and line manager. The claimant soon began to feel extremely intoxicated and unwell.

She was then escorted to a nearby hotel room by her line manager and a female colleague. Her next recollection was waking up in a hotel bed next to her line manager, who was sexually assaulting her. Fortunately, the claimant managed to escape the hotel room and make her way to the hotel lobby. The claimant immediately reported the assault to the police, leading to her manager’s arrest. Following a delayed criminal trial, the court found that the claimant’s heightened blood alcohol content had rendered her unable to consent. Her manager was consequently convicted and sentenced to prison.

Sexual harassment

Waitress told she had ‘prettiest eyes’ awarded £43k at tribunal

Former head teacher jailed after harassing trainee

EHRC seeks views on new guidance on preventing sexual harassment

Bear hug complaint ‘swept under carpet’ by doughnut firm leads to £31k award

The assault and subsequent criminal trial had a profound impact on the claimant’s mental health, resulting in anxiety, hypervigilance and a deep distrust in men. The immense impact on the claimant’s personal and work life prompted her to seek general and special damages, including compensation for a disadvantage on the open labour market.

Legal arguments and the lack of bespoke legislation

This particular case did not meet the criteria for pursuing action under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This Act prohibits the pursuit of a “course of conduct” that constitutes harassment of another. As the index assault was an isolated incident, it did not meet the threshold of a course of conduct, which requires two or more instances of abuse.

Consequently, the claimant sought to rely upon the legal principle of vicarious liability in her claim for breach of duty. Under this principle, employers can be held responsible for the wrongful actions of their employees during the course of their employment.

To succeed with this argument, two conditions must be met:

• There must be a relationship of employment, or akin to employment, between the defendant (employer) and the perpetrator;
• The wrongful act must be closely connected to the act the perpetrator was employed to perform. In this case, the difficulty lay in meeting the second stage, known as the close connection test.

Naturally, assault does not fall within the scope of a manager’s duties. However, the claimant argued that her line manager was acting in the course of his employment, as the event was organised by company employees; he attended the event in his capacity as an employee, arranged the hotel room for the purpose of attending the event, and escorted her to the room with another female employee to ensure her wellbeing.

Despite the strong arguments presented by the claimant, her employer was unwilling to accept liability, citing a failure to satisfy the close connection test. Consequently, the claimant was left without a straightforward route to justice. However, BBK managed to secure a successful resolution for the claimant reaching a settlement with the claimant’s employers.

BBK are advocating for a clear legal definition of workplace bullying to enhance workers’ rights. As evidenced, the current legal instruments do not adequately protect those who have experienced isolated incidents of abuse in the workplace.

Countries such as Australia and the Netherlands have enacted bespoke legislation to prohibit such behaviour and empower victims to pursue redress. Implementing similar legislation in the UK would broaden access to justice for those impacted by workplace misconduct.

Limitation and lack of awareness of the civil claims route

Another challenge the claimant encountered was her limitation period, which dictates the timeframe within which a claim must be brought. In cases of breach of duty, a victim typically has three years from the date of the incident to file a claim. Unfortunately, the claimant’s claim in this instance was technically time-barred, providing her employer with a valid defence.

While the Court may exercise discretion to allow claims to be brought beyond the limitation period, this is not guaranteed. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate that a fair trial can still take place. This strictly contrasts with the Scottish approach, where defendants bear the burden of proving that a fair trial is no longer feasible.

In this case, the claimant argued that her claim should be permitted to proceed beyond the time limit due to the nature and sensitivity of the issues involved. She asserted that the delay in bringing her claim was due to the psychiatric injuries that she has suffered and the delayed criminal trial against her manager, and consequently, a fair trial had not been compromised. This issue posed a significant risk to the claimant’s case. If the court were to disagree with her reasoning, her claim would fail.

Limitation frequently presents a challenge in civil claims. While victims of bullying and harassment are generally well-informed about the three-month time limits for employment tribunal claims, there is a lack of awareness regarding the civil claims process and its associated time limits. It is common for victims to seek guidance from workplace experts ACAS in regard to work-related issues.

Currently, ACAS offers information on internal complaints, such as grievances, as well as employment tribunal claims.

BBK is calling for an expansion of ACAS’s advisory services to include guidance on the civil claims process. By broadening the range of information available, ACAS can empower victims to consider all legal avenues available to them, enabling them to pursue the most appropriate route in a timely manner.

Legal reform

Although the claimant’s case was resolved successfully, it has underscored the significant challenges in accessing justice through the civil claims route. At Bolt Burdon Kemp, we are actively advocating for substantive legal reforms through our Manifesto for Injured People. By championing these key policy changes, we can make a meaningful impact on the lives of numerous workers in our society and enhance access to justice.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today

Thomas Beale

Thomas Beale, partner and head of the bullying and harassment team at Bolt Burdon Kemp

REC launches campaign to champion temp work

Overseas workers: sponsor licences up 300% on 2020 level, leave a comment cancel reply.

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

You may also like

Lloyd’s of london consults on misconduct measures, top 10 hr questions august 2024: duty to..., hybrid work discrimination claim fails at tribunal, tuc poll: more than half lgbtq+ workers harassed..., breaking wind at younger colleague was ‘age discrimination’, more than half believe shouting at work is..., ehrc seeks views on new guidance on preventing..., nmc has ‘toxic’ culture of racism and bullying, apple ‘genius’ unfairly dismissed under non-existent zero-tolerance policy.

More From Forbes

4 ways to prevent employee ‘work wounds’ from contaminating work culture in 2024.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

You can't put a band-aid on workplace wounds caused by bad behavior, bullying and work betrayal, but ... [+] there are preventative measures companies can take.

If you think bullying is something only children have to worry about, you’re wrong. A poll on workplace bullying found that 75% of employees reported being affected as either a target or witness. The Workplace Bullying Institute reports that 79.3 million U.S. workers are affected by workplace bullying, and it remains mostly a top-down pattern, with 65% of bullies being bosses.

No matter how prevalent workplace bullying and abuses are, business leaders must never normalize or turn a deaf ear to the problem. According to an employment law attorney I spoke with, many members of the workforce have experienced profound “work wounds”—from bullying to bad behavior to feelings of work betrayal. Bree Johnson, founder and CEO of Executive Unschool , told me that these unaddressed work wounds perpetuate on-going harm, loss of productivity and unhealthy behaviors in the workplace.

“My clients come to me when they want to enhance their workplace culture but feel mired in the churn and burn of top talent,” Johnson says. “What they are failing to properly recognize and handle, is the reality that their people have experienced profound work wounds.”

Deeply-Rooted Workplace Issues

Johnson says executives and high achieving leaders are feeling more stressed and overwhelmed than ever. She cites data showing that Job dissatisfaction rates are staggeringly high, and people are reporting the troubling rates of burnout . She also points out that he EEOC reported an insidious trend of employment lawsuits and claims on the rise, leaving company leaders to wonder what can be done to combat the grave impact of all of this on workplace culture.

Johnson is convinced that at the root of many workplace challenges are work wounds. “Work wounds are caused by deeply painful and rupturing experiences at work,” she notes. “In my work and research, I’ve boiled work wounds down to the three B’s: Bullying, Betrayal and Bad Behavior. When an employee experiences a work wound, it’s often an unhealed wound that festers in the workplace. And it leads to conflicts with colleagues, focus and productivity declines and even lawsuits. But the most forward-thinking employers acknowledge work wounds and take proactive steps to mitigate them from happening in the first place.”

Ukrainian Troops Breached The Russian Border West Of Kursk—And Claimed They Bypassed Thousands Of Russian Conscripts

Google warns millions of android users—do not install these apps, ukrainian troops breached russian border defenses 20 miles west of the kursk salient—but didn’t get very far, misconceptions about work culture.

You wouldn’t put a band-aid on skin cancer, and Johnson posits that one of the biggest misconceptions about work culture and employee engagement is that offering perks, benefits or band-aid approaches can override deeper issues. “Companies invest thousands of waste in performative wellness programs, conferences and travel and superficial team-building activities that they hope will solve their problems,” she observes. “However, without addressing underlying work wounds infecting the company’s culture, these efforts are akin to placing a bandage on a much larger wound.”

Johnson also believes there's a misconception that work wounds are isolated incidents or personal problems rather than systemic issues that affect the entire organization. “Leaders may overlook or dismiss behaviors that contribute to a toxic culture, such as microaggressions, unchecked competition, reports of bullying and bad behavior, thinking they’re just part of the ‘norm’ or that they will go away in time,” she states.

But she also acknowledges that some organizations are getting it right and taking innovative approaches to heal work wounds. As an example, she cites a tech company client that implemented a comprehensive and immersive inner leadership development program, allowing managers, directors and executives to enhance their understanding of work wounds and how their own habits perpetuate unnecessary suffering in the workplace.

“Similarly, several C-Suite clients are using nervous system regulation practices in the workplace to help reduce conflict, tension and work wounds,” she says. “These companies are not only addressing the symptoms of work wounds but are also proactively working to prevent them by fostering a culture of transparency, accountability and psychological safety.”

How Companies Can Address Work Wounds

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, employers tend to encourage, defend, rationalize, discount or deny bullying. If you’re a leader of an organization, you can’t afford to allow work wounding—bullying, betrayal, cyberbullying or other bad behaviors—to continue because it abuses employees and harms your bottom line. Workplace performance drops, and the company’s integrity is compromised. Minimizing, covering up or turning your head the other way, in effect, creates a toxic culture for all employees. Addressing work wounds requires a multifaceted approach, according to Johnson, who offers four basic strategies.

• Acknowledge the problem. Johnson suggests that leaders must first recognize that work wounds exist and are detrimental to both employees and the organization. She says this involves creating spaces for open dialogue where employees can share their experiences without fear of retaliation.
• Invest in regulation. Johnson recommends equipping managers and employees with nervous system regulation training that focuses on emotional intelligence, conflict resolution and working through harmful behaviors by regulating the nervous system. She told me that this involves two facets: inner leadership development and mindfulness practices and how to use them in the workplace. “Most people are already dis-regulated by overwhelm and stress at work when they feel further activated by work wounds and therefore nervous system regulation practices are the best way to slow down out of an autopilot response,” she explains, adding that it helps to create a more empathetic and supportive work environment.
• Provide support resources. Johnson advises offering access to counseling, executive and leadership private mentorship and other mental health resources to help employees heal from past work wounds. Plus, she emphasizes the importance of encouraging employees to seek help when needed to reduce the long-term impact of work wounds.
• Foster a culture of empowerment. Johnson is an advocate of ditching outdated beliefs that employees need to be monitored, managed and scrutinized. Instead, she encourages the creation of a culture of empowerment where employees are trusted, their ideas are valued and their past experiences are acknowledged and respected.

A Final Word

“Work wounds are a silent epidemic in the modern workplace—that physical harm from which will soon be akin to smoking cigarettes —but they don’t have to dictate the future of any organization,” Johnson asserts. “By recognizing the existence of work wounds in employees, taking proactive measures such as nervous system regulation training, and fostering a culture of empowerment and trust, leaders can turn the tide.”

She insists this approach not only mitigates the negative impacts on individual employees but also enhances overall productivity, reduces turnover and creates a more resilient and positive workplace culture. “It’s imperative for leaders to shift their focus from merely managing work culture to actively healing it,” she concludes. “After all, a healthy workplace isn’t just about perks—it's about people.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

For the best experience, we recommend you update your browser. Visit our accessibility page for a list of supported browsers. Alternatively, you can continue using your current browser by closing this message.

• Programme finder
• Application process
• Scholarships and awards
• Open events
• The RCA experience
• International students

Short courses

• Teaching dates & College hours
• Student policies, procedures and regulations
• Research projects
• Research centres
• Support for research
• Research Excellence Framework (REF)
• Research degrees
• Executive education
• Case studies
• InnovationRCA
• Collaboration with industry
• Research commercialisation
• Studio projects
• Terra Carta Design Lab projects
• RapidFormRCA
• News and events
• Media centre
• About the RCA
• Organisation
• Work at the RCA
• Sustainability
• Freedom of information
• Visiting the RCA
• About this website
• --> Pre-Master's
• --> Taught Master's
• --> Postgraduate research
• --> Short courses
• --> Part-time programmes
• --> School of Architecture
• --> School of Arts & Humanities
• --> School of Communication
• --> School of Design
• --> Apply to study at the RCA
• --> Eligibility and key dates
• --> English language requirements
• --> Funding your studies
• --> Application process: frequently asked questions
• --> Information for offer holders
• --> Where will the RCA take you?
• --> Careers support
• --> Our campus
• --> Facilities
• --> Learning environment
• --> Student support team
• --> Disability support
• --> Dyslexia support
• --> RCA BLK
• --> Student wellbeing
• --> Students' Union
• --> Accommodation in London
• --> Cost of living
• --> Student Visa
• --> Before you arrive in the UK
• --> CAS Number: frequently asked questions
• --> EAP (English for academic purposes) Pre-sessional courses
• --> Working in the UK after your studies
• --> The RCA and international agents
• --> Summer Schools
• --> Executive education masterclasses
• --> Art & design short courses
• --> Custom executive education
• --> IN SESSION: talks
• --> Participant testimonies
• --> Frequently asked questions
• --> Terms and conditions
• --> The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design
• --> Intelligent Mobility Design Centre
• --> Materials Science Research Centre
• --> Computer Science Research Centre
• --> RCA Robotics Laboratory
• --> CLIMAVORE x Jameel at RCA
• --> Research students
• --> About InnovationRCA
• --> Start-up companies
• --> Our services
• --> College mission
• --> Governance
• --> Policies and codes of practice
• --> Equality & diversity
• --> Corporate publications
• --> Archive & collections
• --> Suppliers
• --> How to apply
• --> Staff benefits
• --> HR & payroll systems for casual workers
• --> Accessibility
• --> Data protection, privacy & cookies
• --> Terms & conditions
• Register your interest in studying
• Support GenerationRCA
• Visit our application portal

Case study: Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Practice-led live online introduction to the study and practice of contemporary art 22 July – 9 August 2024.

Course Team

• Despina Zacharopoulou , Visiting Lecturer and Contemporary Art Summer School Short Course Leader, RCA
• Prof Johnny Golding , RCA Senior Tutor Research, School of Arts & Humanities
• John Slyce , RCA Senior Tutor Research, MA Painting, School of Arts & Humanities
• Whiskey Chow , RCA Tutor, MA Sculpture, School of Arts & Humanities
• Tom Lovelace , RCA Visiting Lecturer, MA Photography, School of Arts & Humanities
• Sharon Young , RCA Visiting Lecturer, School of Arts & Humanities
• Juliet Jacques , RCA Associate Lecturer, MA Contemporary Art Practice
• Daphne Dragona , curator, theorist and writer
• Stefania Strouza , visual artist
• Denys Zacharopoulos, Art Historian, Art Critic and Curator

Check out the Contemporary Art Summer School course page.

Over 50% of participants go on to apply for postgraduate study at the RCA.

Register your interest for upcoming course dates.

Gallery of participants work

Vania Lin, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

“I enjoyed having a class with Despina. She gave me lots of useful advice during the 1-1. I found it very inspiring when Despina shared her thoughts on the group's artworks. I enjoyed listening to her sharing ideas. Also, I enjoyed the artist talk from Charlie and Gertrude. Their practices are fascinating and inspiring. For the final presentation, I've learned so much from the groups and the comments from Professor Johnny Golding and Denys Zacharopoulos were very rich and on points.” Vania Lin, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Penny Sumerfield, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

“It was great to have a cohort from such diverse backgrounds and practices, I think everyone's approach and willingness to share ideas and references made collaborating fun and greatly enriched the over all experience of the course.” Aninda Singh, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Aninda Singh, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Anastasia Naasan, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Caroline de Aquino, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Sharon Armor, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Claire Fried, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Shireen Ikramullah, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Alex Pillen, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Ruby Henderson, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

“Life-changing course, introducing new ways of thinking - be open minded and prepare to be challenged!” Kate Cameron Reid, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

“My aim in the course was to gain clarity about my work. I felt like I was at a dead end and that's how it was. Despinas well-founded, honest and clear feedback hit the mark and led me out of the impasse. That is very very valuable to me. The whole team was incredibly friendly and helpful. The entire course is super professionally structured and guided. I was incredibly impressed and delighted by the passion for art and above all, the self-image that was practiced. The overall attitude towards arts in all disciplines and the artists inspired me.” Judith Weißig, Contemporary Art Summer School 2024

Despina Zacharopoulou

RCA Visiting Lecturer and Short Course Leader

Dr Despina Zacharopoulou is a performance artist working between London and Athens. She completed her practice-led Ph.D. in Philosophy & Fine Art (Performance) at the Royal College of Art, with the support of an Onassis Foundation Scholarship. Despina has been the academic leader of the RCA Contemporary Art Summer School since 2017, while also leading school groups, tutorials and crits at the RCA MA programs since 2016.

Related pages

Contemporary Art Summer School

Curating Contemporary Art and Design: Theory and Practice

Editorial Design

The Graphic Novel: Visual Storytelling RCA Short Course

Get in touch if you'd like to find out more about our short courses.