Workplace bullying is a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others in the workplace that causes either physical or emotional harm. It can include such tactics as verbal, nonverbal, psychological, physical abuse and humiliation. This type of workplace aggression is particularly difficult because, unlike the typical school bully, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society. In the majority of cases, bullying in the workplace is reported as having been done by someone who has authority over the victim. However, bullies can also be peers, and occasionally subordinates.
Research has also investigated the impact of the larger organizational context on bullying as well as the group-level processes that impact on the incidence and maintenance of bullying behaviour. Bullying can be covert or overt. It may be missed by superiors; it may be known by many throughout the organization. Negative effects are not limited to the targeted individuals, and may lead to a decline in employee morale and a change in organizational culture. It can also take place as overbearing supervision, constant criticism, and blocking promotions.
While there is no universally accepted formal definition of workplace bullying, and some researchers even question whether a uniform definition is possible due to its complex and multifaceted forms, but several researchers have endeavoured to define it:
Because it can occur in a variety of contexts and forms, it is also useful to define workplace bullying by the key features that these behaviours possess. Bullying is characterized by:
This distinguishes bullying from isolated behaviours and other forms of job stress and allows the term workplace bullying to be applied in various contexts and to behaviours that meet these characteristics. Many observers agree that bullying is often a repetitive behaviour. However, some experts who have dealt with a great many people who report abuse also categorize some once-only events as bullying, for example with cases where there appear to be severe sequelae. Expanding the common understanding of bullying to include single, severe episodes also parallels the legal definitions of sexual harassment in the US.
According to Pamela Lutgin-Sandvik, the lack of unifying language to name the phenomenon of workplace bullying is a problem because without a unifying term or phrase, individuals have difficulty naming their experiences of abuse, and therefore have trouble pursuing justice against the bully. Unlike sexual harassment, which named a specific problem and is now recognized in law of many countries (including the U.S.), workplace bullying is still being established as a relevant social problem and is in need of a specific vernacular.
Euphemisms intended to trivialize bullying and its impact on bullied people include: incivility, disrespect, difficult people, personality conflict, negative conduct, and ill treatment. Bullied people are labelled as insubordinate when they resist the bullying treatment.
There is no exact definition for bullying behaviours in workplace, which is why different terms and definitions are common. For example, mobbing is a commonly used term in France and Germany, where it refers to a "mob" of bullies, rather than a single bully; this phenomenon is not often seen in other countries.[failed verification] In the United States, aggression and emotional abuse are frequently used terms, whereas harassment is the term preferred in Finland. Workplace bullying is primarily used in Australia, UK, and Northern Europe.[failed verification] While the terms "harassment" and "mobbing" are often used to describe bullying behaviors, "workplace bullying" tends to be the most commonly used term by the research community.
Bosses are the most common bullies, with approximately 72% of bullies outranking their victims.
Research suggests that a significant number of people are exposed to persistent workplace bullying, with a majority of studies reporting a 10 to 15% prevalence in Europe and North America. This figure can vary dramatically upon what definition of workplace bullying is used.
Statistics from the 2007 WBI-Zogby survey show that 13% of U.S. employees report being bullied currently, 24% say they have been bullied in the past and an additional 12% say they have witnessed workplace bullying. Nearly half of all American workers (49%) report that they have been affected by workplace bullying, either being a target themselves or having witnessed abusive behaviour against a co-worker.
Although socioeconomic factors may play a role in the abuse, researchers from the Project for Wellness and Work-Life suggest that "workplace bullying, by definition, is not explicitly connected to demographic markers such as sex and ethnicity".
According to the 2015 National Health Interview Survey Occupational Health Supplement (NHIS-OHS), the national prevalence rate for workers reporting having been threatened, bullied, or harassed by anyone on the job was 7.4%.
In 2008, Dr. Judy Fisher-Blando wrote a doctoral research dissertation on Aggressive behaviour: Workplace Bullying and Its Effect on Job Satisfaction and Productivity. The scientific study determined that almost 75% of employees surveyed had been affected by workplace bullying, whether as a target or a witness. Further research showed the types of bullying behaviour, and organizational support.
In terms of gender, the Workplace Bullying Institute (2007) states that women appear to be at greater risk of becoming a bullying target, as 57% of those who reported being targeted for abuse were women. Men are more likely to participate in aggressive bullying behaviour (60%), however when the bully is a woman her target is more likely to be a woman as well (71%).
In 2015, the National Health Interview Survey found a higher prevalence of women (8%) workers who were threatened, bullied, or harassed than men. 
The research of Samnani and Singh (2012) reviews the findings from 20 years' literature and claims that inconsistent findings could not support the differences across gender.
Race also may play a role in the experience of workplace bullying. According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (2007), the comparison of reported combined bullying (current + ever bullied) prevalence percentages in the USA reveals the pattern from most to least:
The reported rates of witnessing bullying were:
The percentages of those reporting that they have neither experienced nor witnessed mistreatment were:
Higher prevalence rates for experiencing a hostile work environment were identified for workers with some college education or workers with high school diploma or GED, compared to workers with less than a high school education.
Lower prevalence rates for experiencing a hostile work environment were identified for workers aged 65 and older compared to workers in other age groups.
With respect to age, conflicting findings have been reported. A study by Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) indicates older employees tend to be more likely to be bullied than younger ones.
The prevalence of a hostile work environment varies by industry. In 2015, the broad industry category with the highest prevalence was healthcare and social assistance 10%. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16,890 workers in the private industry experienced physical trauma from nonfatal workplace violence in 2016.
The prevalence of hostile work environment varies by occupation. In 2015, the occupation groups with the highest prevalence was protective services (24%) and community and social services (15%). 
Researchers Caitlin Buon and Tony Buon suggest that attempts to profile ‘the bully’ have been damaging. They state that the "bully" profile is that ‘the bully’ is always aware of what they are doing, deliberately sets out to harm their ‘victims’, targets a particular individual or type of person, and has some kind of underlying personality flaw, insecurity, or disorder. But this is unproven and lacks evidence. The researchers suggest referring to workplace bullying as generic harassment along with other forms of non-specific harassment, as this would enable employees to use less emotionally charged language for starting a dialogue about their experiences, rather than being repelled by having to define their experiences as victims. Tony Buon and Caitlin Buon also suggest that the perception and profile of the workplace bully does not facilitate interventions. They suggest that to make significant progress and achieve long-term behaviour change, organisations and individuals need to embrace the notion that everyone potentially houses ‘the bully’ within them and their organisations. It exists in workplace cultures, belief systems, interactions, and emotional competencies, and cannot be transformed if externalization and demonization further the problem by profiling ‘the bully’ rather than talking about behaviours and interpersonal interactions.
Based on research by H. Hoel and C.L. Cooper, most perpetrators are supervisors. The second most common group is peers, followed by subordinates and customers. The three main relationships among the participants in workplace bullying:
Bullying may also occur between an organization and its employees.
Bullying behaviour by supervisors toward subordinates typically manifests as an abuse of power by the supervisor in the workplace. Bullying behaviours by supervisors may be associated with a culture of bullying and the management style of the supervisors. An authoritative management style, specifically, often includes bullying behaviours, which can make subordinates fearful and allow supervisors to bolster their authority over others.
If an organization wishes to discourage bullying in the workplace, strategies and policies must be put into place to dissuade and counter bullying behavior. Lack of monitoring or of punishment/corrective action will result in an organizational culture that supports/tolerates bullying.
In addition to supervisor – subordinate bullying, bullying behaviours also occur between colleagues. Peers can be either the target or perpetrator. If workplace bullying happens among the co-workers, witnesses will typically choose sides, either with the target or the perpetrator. Perpetrators usually "win" since witnesses do not want to be the next target. This outcome encourages perpetrators to continue their bullying behaviour. In addition, the sense of the injustice experienced by a target might lead that person to become another perpetrator who bullies other colleagues who have less power than they do, thereby proliferating bullying in the organization.
Maarit Varitia, a workplace bullying researcher, found that 20% of interviewees who experienced workplace bullying attributed their being targeted to their being different from others.
The third relationship in the workplace is between employees and customers. Although less frequent, such cases play a significant role in the efficiency of the organization. Overly stressed or distressed employees may be less able to perform optimally and can impact the quality of service overall.
The fourth relationship in the workplace is between the organization or system and its employees. An article by Andreas Liefooghe (2012) notes that many employees describe their employer as a "bully."
These cases, the issue is not simply an organizational culture or environmental factors facilitating bullying, but bullying-like behaviour by an employer against an employee. Tremendous power imbalances between an organization and its employees enables the employer to "legitimately exercise" power (e.g., by monitoring and controlling employees) in a manner consistent with bullying.
Although the terminology of bullying traditionally implies an interpersonal relationship between the perpetrator and target, organizations' or other collectives' actions can constitute bullying both by definition and in their impacts on targets. However, while defining bullying as an interpersonal phenomenon is considered legitimate, classifying incidences of employer exploitation, retaliation, or other abuses of power against an employee as a form of bullying is often not taken as seriously.
Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organizations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least the implicit blessing of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour. Furthermore, new managers will quickly come to view this form of behaviour as acceptable and normal if they see others get away with it and are even rewarded for it.
When bullying happens at the highest levels, the effects may be far reaching. People may be bullied irrespective of their organizational status or rank, including senior managers, which indicates the possibility of a negative domino effect, where bullying may cascade downwards, as the targeted supervisors might offload their own aggression onto their subordinates. In such situations, a bullying scenario in the boardroom may actually threaten the productivity of the entire organisation.
Research investigating the acceptability of the bullying behaviour across different cultures (e.g.g Power et al., 2013) clearly shows that culture affects the perception of the acceptable behaviour. National background also influences the prevalence of workplace bullying (Harvey et al., 2009; Hoel et al., 1999; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).
Humane orientation is negatively associated with the acceptability of work-related bullying. Performance orientation is positively associated with the acceptance of bullying. Future orientation is negatively associated with the acceptability of bullying. A culture of femininity suggests that individuals who live and work in this kind of culture tend to value interpersonal relationships to a greater degree.
In Confucian Asia, which has a higher performance orientation than Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, bullying may be seen as an acceptable price to pay for performance. The value Latin America holds for personal connections with employees and the higher humane orientation of Sub-Saharan Africa may help to explain their distaste for bullying. A culture of individualism in the US implies competition, which may increase the likelihood of workplace bullying situations.
Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified what he referred to as petty tyrants, i.e., leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace. Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear and doubt. When employees get the sense that bullies "get away with it," a climate of fear may be the result. Several studies have confirmed a relationship between bullying, on the one hand, and an autocratic leadership and an authoritarian way of settling conflicts or dealing with disagreements, on the other. An authoritarian style of leadership may create a climate of fear, where there is little or no room for dialogue and where complaining may be considered futile.
In a study of public-sector union members, approximately one in five workers reported having considered leaving the workplace as a result of witnessing bullying taking place. Rayner explained these figures by pointing to the presence of a climate of fear in which employees considered reporting to be unsafe, where bullies had "got away with it" previously despite management knowing of the presence of bullying.
The workplace bully is often expert at knowing how to work the system. They can spout all the current management buzzwords about supportive management but use it as a cover. By keeping their abusive behaviour hidden, any charges made by individuals about his or her bullying will always come down to your word against theirs. They may have a kiss up kick down personality, wherein they are always highly cooperative, respectful, and caring when talking to upper management but the opposite when it comes to their relationship with those whom they supervise. Bullies tend to ingratiate themselves to their bosses while intimidating subordinates. They may be socially popular with others in management, including those who will determine their fate. Often, a workplace bully will have mastered kiss up kick down tactics that hide their abusive side from superiors who review their performance.
As a consequence of this kiss up kick down strategy:
The flow of blame in an organization may be a primary indicator of that organization's robustness and integrity. Blame flowing downwards, from management to staff, or laterally between professionals or partner organizations, indicates organizational failure. In a blame culture, problem-solving is replaced by blame-avoidance. Confused roles and responsibilities also contribute to a blame culture. Blame culture reduces the capacity of an organization to take adequate measures to prevent minor problems from escalating into uncontrollable situations. Several issues identified in organizations with a blame culture contradicts high reliability organizations best practices. Blame culture is considered a serious issue in healthcare organizations by the World Health Organization, which recommends to promote a no-blame culture, or just culture, a means to increase patients safety.
The most typical reactions to workplace bullying are to do with the survival instinct – "fight or flight" – and these are probably a victim's healthier responses to bullying. Flight is often a response to bullying. It is very common, especially in organizations in which upper management cannot or will not deal with the bullying. In hard economic times, however, flight may not be an option, and fighting may be the only choice.
Fighting the bullying can require near heroic action, especially if the bullying targets just one or two individuals. It can also be a difficult challenge. There are some times when confrontation is called for. First, there is always a chance that the bully boss is labouring under the impression that this is the way to get things done and does not recognize the havoc being wrought on subordinates.
Research by the Workplace Bullying Institute, suggests that the following are the 25 most common workplace bullying tactics:
According to Bassman, common abusive workplace behaviours are:
Abusive cyberbullying in the workplace can have serious socioeconomic and psychological consequences on the victim. Workplace cyberbullying can lead to sick leave due to depression which in turn can lead to loss of profits for the organisation.
Several aspects of academia, such as the generally decentralized nature of academic institutions and the particular recruitment and career procedures, lend themselves to the practice of bullying and discourage its reporting and mitigation.
Bullying has been identified as prominent in blue collar jobs including on oil rigs, and in mechanical areas and machine shops, warehouses and factories. It is thought that intimidation and fear of retribution cause decreased incident reports, which, in the socioeconomic and cultural milieu of such industries, would likely lead to a vicious circle. This is often used in combination with manipulation and coercion of facts to gain favour among higher ranking administrators.[non-primary source needed] For example, an investigation conducted following a hazing incident at Portland Bureau of Transportation within the city government of Portland, Oregon found ritual hazing kept hidden for years under the guise of "no snitching", where whistleblowing was punished and loyalty was praised. Two thirds of the interviewed employees in this investigation declared they deemed the best way they found to deal with the workplace's bad behaviors was "not to get involved", as they "feared retaliation if they did intervene or report the problems."
A culture of bullying is common in information technology (IT), leading to high sickness rates, low morale, poor productivity and high staff turnover. Deadline-driven project work and stressed-out managers take their toll on IT workers.
Bullying in the legal profession is believed to be more common than in some other professions. It is believed that its adversarial, hierarchical tradition contributes towards this. Women, trainees and solicitors who have been qualified for five years or less are more impacted, as are ethnic minority lawyers and lesbian, gay and bisexual lawyers.
Bullying in the medical profession is common, particularly of student or trainee doctors. It is thought that this is at least in part an outcome of conservative traditional hierarchical structures and teaching methods in the medical profession which may result in a bullying cycle.
Bullying has been identified as being particularly prevalent in the nursing profession although the reasons are not clear. It is thought that relational aggression (psychological aspects of bullying such as gossiping and intimidation) are relevant. Relational aggression has been studied amongst girls but not so much amongst adult women.
School teachers are commonly the subject of bullying but they are also sometimes the originators of bullying within a school environment.
Bullying can be common in volunteering settings. For example, one study found bullying to be the most significant factor of complaints amongst volunteers . Volunteers often do not have access to protections available to paid employees, so while laws may indicate that bullying is a violation of rights, volunteers may have no means to address it.
Adult bullying can come in an assortment of forms. There are about five distinctive types of adult bullies. A narcissistic bully is described as a self-centred person whose egotism is frail and possesses the need to put others down. An impulsive bully is someone who acts on bullying based on stress or being upset at the moment. A physical bully uses physical injury and the threat of harm to abuse their victims, while a verbal bully uses demeaning language and cynicism to debase their victims. Lastly, a secondary adult bully is portrayed as a person that did not start the initial bullying but participates in afterwards to avoid being bullied themselves ("Adult Bullying"). 
Workplace bullying is reported to be far more prevalent than perhaps commonly thought. For some reason, workplace bullying seems to be particularly widespread in healthcare organizations; 80% of nurses report experiencing workplace bullying. Similar to the school environment for children, the work environment typically places groups of adult peers together in a shared space on a regular basis. In such a situation, social interactions and relationships are of great importance to the function of the organizational structure and in pursuing goals. The emotional consequences of bullying put an organization at risk of losing victimized employees. Bullying also contributes to a negative work environment, is not conducive to necessary cooperation and can lessen productivity at various levels. Bullying in the workplace is associated with negative responses to stress. The ability to manage emotions, especially emotional stress, seems to be a consistently important factor in different types of bullying. The workplace in general can be a stressful environment, so a negative way of coping with stress or an inability to do so can be particularly damning. Workplace bullies may have high social intelligence and low emotional intelligence (EI). In this context, bullies tend to rank high on the social ladder and are adept at influencing others. The combination of high social intelligence and low empathy is conducive to manipulative behaviour, such that Hutchinson (2013) describes workplace bullying to be. In working groups where employees have low EI, workers can be persuaded to engage in unethical behaviour. With the bullies' persuasion, the work group is socialized in a way that rationalizes the behaviour, and makes the group tolerant or supportive of the bullying. Hutchinson & Hurley (2013) make the case that EI and leadership skills are both necessary to bullying intervention in the workplace, and illustrates the relationship between EI, leadership and reductions in bullying. EI and ethical behaviour among other members of the work team have been shown to have a significant impact on ethical behaviour of nursing teams. Higher EI is linked to improvements in the work environment and is an important moderator between conflict and reactions to conflict in the workplace. The self-awareness and self-management dimensions of EI have both been illustrated to have strong positive correlations with effective leadership and the specific leadership ability to build healthy work environments and work culture.
Abusive supervision overlaps with workplace bullying in the workplace context. Research suggests that 75% of workplace bullying incidents are perpetrated by hierarchically superior agents. Abusive supervision differs from related constructs such as supervisor bullying and undermining in that it does not describe the intentions or objectives of the supervisor.
A power and control model has been developed for the workplace, divided into the following categories:
Workplace mobbing overlaps with workplace bullying. The concept originated from the study of animal behaviour. It concentrates on bullying by a group.
Workplace bullying overlaps to some degree with workplace incivility but tends to encompass more intense and typically repeated acts of disregard and rudeness. Negative spirals of increasing incivility between organizational members can result in bullying, but isolated acts of incivility are not conceptually bullying despite the apparent similarity in their form and content. In bullying, the intent of harm is less ambiguous, an unequal balance of power (both formal and informal) is more salient, and the target of bullying feels threatened, vulnerable and unable to defend themself against negative recurring actions.
In 2005, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, interviewed and gave personality tests to high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminal psychiatric patients at Broadmoor Hospital in the UK. They found that three out of eleven personality disorders were actually more common in executives than in the disturbed criminals. They were:
Industrial/organizational psychology research has also examined the types of bullying that exist among business professionals and the prevalence of this form of bullying in the workplace as well as ways to measure bullying empirically.
Narcissism, lack of self-regulation, lack of remorse and lack of conscience have been identified as traits displayed by bullies. These traits are shared with psychopaths, indicating that there is some theoretical cross-over between bullies and psychopaths. Bullying is used by corporate psychopaths as a tactic to humiliate subordinates. Bullying is also used as a tactic to scare, confuse and disorient those who may be a threat to the activities of the corporate psychopath Using meta data analysis on hundreds of UK research papers, Boddy concluded that 36% of bullying incidents were caused by the presence of corporate psychopaths. According to Boddy there are two types of bullying:
A corporate psychopath uses instrumental bullying to further their goals of promotion and power as the result of causing confusion and divide and rule.
People with high scores on a psychopathy rating scale are more likely to engage in bullying, crime and drug use than other people. Hare and Babiak noted that about 29% of corporate psychopaths are also bullies. Other research has also shown that people with high scores on a psychopathy rating scale were more likely to engage in bullying, again indicating that psychopaths tend to be bullies in the workplace.
A workplace bully or abuser will often have issues with social functioning. These types of people often have psychopathic traits that are difficult to identify in the hiring and promotion process. These individuals often lack anger management skills and have a distorted sense of reality. Consequently, when confronted with the accusation of abuse, the abuser is not aware that any harm was done.
In 2007, researchers Catherine Mattice and Brian Spitzberg at San Diego State University, USA, found that narcissism revealed a positive relationship with bullying. Narcissists were found to prefer indirect bullying tactics (such as withholding information that affects others' performance, ignoring others, spreading gossip, constantly reminding others of mistakes, ordering others to do work below their competence level, and excessively monitoring others' work) rather than direct tactics (such as making threats, shouting, persistently criticizing, or making false allegations). The research also revealed that narcissists are highly motivated to bully, and that to some extent, they are left with feelings of satisfaction after a bullying incident occurs.
According to Namie, Machiavellians manipulate and exploit others to advance their perceived personal agendas. In his view, Machiavellianism represents one of the core components of workplace bullying.
According to Gary and Ruth Namie, as well as Tracy, et al., workplace bullying can harm the health of the targets of bullying. Organizations are beginning to take note of workplace bullying because of the costs to the organization in terms of the health of their employees.
According to scholars at The Project for Wellness and Work-Life at Arizona State University, "workplace bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational, and social costs." Stress is the most predominant health effect associated with bullying in the workplace. Research indicates that workplace stress has significant negative effects that are correlated to poor mental health and poor physical health, resulting in an increase in the use of "sick days" or time off from work (Farrell & Geist-Martin, 2005).
The negative effects of bullying are so severe that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and even suicide are not uncommon. Tehrani found that 1 in 10 targets experience PTSD, and that 44% of her respondents experienced PTSD similar to that of battered women and victims of child abuse. Matthiesen and Einarsen found that up to 77% of targets experience PTSD.
In addition, co-workers who witness workplace bullying can also have negative effects, such as fear, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Those who witness repetitive workplace abuse often choose to leave the place of employment where the abuse took place. Workplace bullying can also hinder the organizational dynamics such as group cohesion, peer communication, and overall performance.
According to the 2012 survey conducted by Workplace Bullying Institute (516 respondents), Anticipation of next negative event is the most common psychological symptom of workplace bullying reported by 80%. Panic attacks afflict 52%. Half (49%) of targets reported being diagnosed with clinical depression. Sleep disruption, loss of concentration, mood swings, and pervasive sadness and insomnia were more common (ranging from 77% to 50%). Nearly three-quarters (71%) of targets sought treatment from a physician. Over half (63%) saw a mental health professional for their work-related symptoms. Respondents reported other symptoms that can be exacerbated by stress: migraine headaches (48%), irritable bowel disorder (37%), chronic fatigue syndrome (33%) and sexual dysfunction (27%).
Workplace depression can occur in many companies of various size and profession, and can have negative effects on positive profit growth. Stress factors that are unique to one's working environment, such as bullying from co-workers or superiors and poor social support for high pressure occupations, can build over time and create inefficient work behavior in depressed individuals. In addition, inadequate or negative communication techniques can further drive an employee to become disconnected from the company's mission and goals. One way that companies can combat the destructive consequences associated with employee depression is to offer more support for counseling and consider bringing in experts to educate staff on the consequences of bullying. Ignoring the problem of depression and decreased workplace performance creates intergroup conflict and lasting feelings of disillusionment.
Several studies have attempted to quantify the cost of bullying to an organization.
Researcher Tamara Parris discusses how employers need to be more attentive in managing various discordant behaviors such as bullying in the workplace, as they not only create a financial cost to the organization, but also erode the company's human resource assets.
Workplace bullying is known in some Asian countries as:
Research into workplace bullying stems from the initial Scandinavian investigations into school bullying in the late 1970s.