Mobbing – when boundaries are crossed

Caroline has been working as a graphic designer at an advertising agency for several months. After completing her studies and additional courses, this is her first serious position in her budding professional career. She is the youngest member of a small but tight-knit team that tries to support her every step of the way. At times, Caroline still struggles to meet deadlines, and her projects do not always meet client expectations. However, her colleagues recognize her enthusiasm and appreciate her steady progress. Her supervisor, on the other hand, has a completely different perspective. For some time now, he has been regularly criticizing Caroline’s engagement, openly questioning her skills and competencies. Recently, during a team meeting, he berated her in front of everyone, calling her a "talentless hack" and a "hopeless case." Out of fear of consequences, the other employees did not react to his shouting and insults. Caroline is experiencing increasing stress and anxiety, which is taking a toll on her health. She is seriously considering taking medical leave or even changing employers.

Mark is an experienced banker in his forties, whose years of service surpass not only most of his colleagues but also some senior managers. Despite consistently meeting targets and diligently carrying out his responsibilities for many years, every time he asks about a promotion, his supervisor responds with the same phrase: “You’re not ready yet.” Although Mark delivers strong results and enjoys the trust of his clients, he is repeatedly overlooked when it comes to awards and bonuses. He is assigned increasingly less ambitious tasks that are below his skill level, and during team meetings, his voice is routinely ignored or dismissed altogether. It is becoming harder for him to stay focused and motivated at work. Lately, he has been taking more sick leave and vacation days, as he feels unappreciated and unnecessary in the company. After years of dedication and conscientious effort, he is starting to lose interest.

Anna works in a small architectural office that operates in the local market, handling accounting. She has been with the company since its inception - over 20 years ago. She enjoys unwavering trust from her boss, who appreciates her precision, professionalism, and loyalty. Recently, there have been significant generational changes in the office. Many much younger employees have joined the team, and the quiet and reserved accountant struggles to connect with them. Her colleagues, however, do little to help her break the ice - they exclude her from group conversations, don’t invite her to team outings or shared lunches, gossip about her behind her back, and even mock her age, sometimes right in front of her. Not wanting to make things worse or criticize her boss’s hiring decisions, Anna remains silent. The job that once brought her joy and satisfaction has now become a burdensome obligation, leading to social isolation and exclusion.

Until recently, Philip shared a desk with his colleagues in the sales department of an international corporation. His coworkers often joked about his diligence and precision, but they liked him and highly valued his knowledge, openness, sociability, and willingness to help others. Everything changed when Philip was promoted and replaced a highly popular team leader. On top of that, unlike his easy-going and lenient predecessor, he introduced slightly different work policies to improve the team’s declining efficiency. As a result, his subordinates not only began ignoring his instructions but also deliberately delayed tasks, openly questioned his decisions in front of senior management, and even spread false rumours that Philip had allegedly encouraged the team to underperform in order to "push out" the former manager. After just a few weeks in his new role, not only had Philip failed to improve the team's results, but he had also fallen out with his colleagues and weakened his standing in the eyes of his own superiors.

Mobbing remains a serious threat

All the above examples are fictional, but many people have encountered and continue to encounter strikingly similar situations in the workplace. Despite growing awareness, informational campaigns, and the implementation of protective and anti-harassment programs by modern companies, mobbing remains a serious threat not only to employees but also to entire organizations. According to research conducted by UCE Research and the ePsycholodzy.pl platform, in the second half of 2023, as many as 41.4% of employees in Poland experienced behaviours in the professional sphere that bore the hallmarks of mobbing. Contrary to common belief, mobbing is not limited to verbal aggression (as in Caroline’s case). As demonstrated by the examples of Mark and Anna, it can also take on subtle forms, such as the devaluation of skills and qualifications, prolonged neglect and disregard, intentional exclusion, or social isolation. The UCE Research study identified the most common mobbing-related behaviour reported by respondents as being assigned meaningless tasks (10%), followed by being the subject of gossip and rumours (9.8%), receiving contradictory instructions (9.6%), and hearing comments driven by jealousy or envy (9%). Surprisingly, shouting, swearing, and insults - previously the dominant response two years earlier - ranked only fifth (8.4%).

Today, mobbing takes many forms and is no longer limited to the traditional supervisor-employee dynamic. Violations of commonly accepted behavioural norms can also occur within a single team (as in Anna’s case) or even be directed at a leader by employees (as in Philip’s case). Regardless of whether we are dealing with vertical, horizontal, or reverse mobbing, its core issue remains the crossing of acceptable boundaries. But where, how, and by whom are these boundaries set? What makes us stop feeling safe and comfortable at work? Who is most vulnerable to mobbing, and how can this phenomenon be prevented? And ultimately, how can we establish these boundaries in a way that ensures they are respected by others? These are questions that, despite many positive changes in the job market, still need to be asked - though finding clear answers is not always easy. The same goes for recognizing mobbing and responding appropriately to workplace misconduct. 

What was mobbing in the past and what it is today?

Mobbing is not a new phenomenon, but it was only officially recognized and named in the second half of the 20th century. Interestingly, the term was not initially used in the context of the workplace. In 1950, Austrian zoologist and ornithologist Konrad Lorenz used the term "mobbing" to describe… collective attacks by Canadian geese on a fox. Each time the birds spotted a predator, they would gather and “harass” it, employing an unusual defensive strategy. What in the animal world did not carry negative connotations (except from the fox’s perspective) was later clearly associated with undesirable behaviours in human society. In the 1970s, Swedish physician Peter Paul Heinemann published a book about children's relationships in schools. He used the term "mobbing" to describe situations where older students bullied younger ones. A decade later, also in Sweden, mobbing was for the first time linked to the workplace. Psychologist Heinz Leymann defined it as a hostile and unethical form of communication directed by one or more people toward an individual, potentially causing psychological and psychosomatic suffering. According to Leymann, the frequency of such actions played a crucial role - he proposed that mobbing occurs when hostile behaviour toward a person persists for at least six months and happens at least once a week.

Over the following 40 years, Leymann's definition was repeatedly modified and expanded. Today, it may seem quite general and imprecise, but his 45 criteria for mobbing - specific characteristics of the phenomenon - are still used in mobbing research. These criteria are divided into five main categories:

• actions disrupting communication (restricting the ability to speak, constant interruptions, responding to remarks with shouting, criticizing the employee’s work and private life, harassment via phone calls, verbal or written threats, humiliating gestures and looks),
• actions disrupting social relationships (including avoiding conversations, treating the victim as if they were invisible, forbidding colleagues from talking to the victim, relocating employees away from where the victim works),
• actions aimed at distorting the victim’s social perception (spreading rumours, suggesting mental illness, mocking nationality, making sexual advances or verbal propositions, ridiculing private life, falsely evaluating work engagement, questioning decisions made by the victim),
• actions affecting the quality of the victim’s personal and professional life (such as withdrawing previously assigned tasks, assigning work below the victim’s skills and qualifications, ordering the victim to perform degrading tasks, assigning meaningless work),
• actions harmful to the victim’s health (threatening physical violence, forcing the victim to perform health-damaging tasks, physical abuse, inflicting psychological harm, sexually motivated actions).

The criteria developed by Leymann have remained largely relevant and have served as the foundation for numerous definitions of mobbing. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) defines this phenomenon as “repeated, unacceptable behaviours directed at an employee or a group of employees, which may pose a threat to their health and safety.” In Polish legislation, the applicable definition is found in Article 94, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Code, which states that “mobbing refers to actions or behaviours concerning an employee or directed against an employee, consisting of persistent and long-term harassment or intimidation of the employee, leading to a reduced assessment of their professional usefulness, causing or intending to cause humiliation or ridicule, isolating them, or eliminating them from the team of colleagues.” Currently, the Ministry of Labor, Family, and Social Policy is working on modifying the definition of mobbing to clarify the persistence of such actions and specify behaviours, such as humiliation or degradation, intimidation, lowering the assessment of an employee’s professional usefulness, hindering their functioning in the work environment, or isolating and eliminating them from the team. The proposed changes also include provisions not only regarding the physical and verbal aspects of such undesirable behaviours but also non-verbal ones.

Who is the most often a victim and who is the perpetrator?

In 2024, CBOS published the report “On Mobbing – The Experiences of Poles”, which compared the latest data on the scale of the phenomenon with data collected from employees in 2014. Over the past 10 years, the number of people who feel comfortable at their workplace has increased (from 74% in 2014 to 85% in 2024), while the percentage of employees who feel average (from 21% to 13%) or bad (a decrease from 3% to 1%) has declined. Positive changes can also be observed in statistics related specifically to mobbing behaviours. A decade ago, 17% of CBOS respondents reported being harassed by their superiors. In 2024, this percentage dropped to 13%. However, the number of respondents who recently experienced harassment and intimidation from their colleagues remained unchanged at 8%.

Research conducted in Poland by CBOS indicates that women experience mobbing more often than men (16% compared to 11%). Younger employees (aged 18-35), residents of the largest cities, university graduates, and individuals who rate their household’s financial situation as average or poor are also more frequently affected. That’s what the statistics say. However, scientific theories supported by research and analysis show that mobbing can affect anyone, although certain groups are particularly vulnerable to such undesirable behaviours:

• ambitious and competent individuals –employees who stand out due to their dedication, hard work, and perfectionism often become victims of mobbing. Their successes may provoke jealousy and a sense of threat among colleagues or supervisors,
• young and inexperienced employees – research shows that individuals under 30, particularly interns and trainees, are the most vulnerable to mobbing. Their lack of experience and lower position in the organizational hierarchy make them easy targets for harassers,
• individuals who stand out – employees who differ from the rest of the team in terms of background, beliefs, or appearance may become targets for exclusion or harassment due to their perceived differences,
• women – this may be linked to traditional social roles, which often lead to the perception that women are less assertive,
• employees in difficult personal situations – people experiencing personal problems, such as divorce or a family illness, may be seen as weaker and less able to defend themselves.

Just as anyone can become a victim of mobbing, anyone can also be a perpetrator—regardless of age, gender, or job position. However, it is estimated that 60-70% of mobbing cases involve a direct supervisor. When creating the "psychological profile" of a mobber, researchers highlight certain traits that significantly increase the tendency to engage in workplace harassment:

• high tendency for competition – such individuals constantly compare themselves to others and strive at all costs to prove their superiority. They will do anything to be better,
• low level of self-reflection – mobbers do not consider the consequences of their actions; they have a goal in mind and will do whatever it takes to achieve it,
• desire for power and control – this applies to people who are constantly seeking to climb the career ladder and dominate others, following the principle of “by any means necessary”,
• strong need for stimulation – mobbers, often bored with a monotonous work environment, find satisfaction in causing distress to others,
• psychopathic tendencies – although this applies to a small percentage of the population, it manifests in mobbing through harassment, intimidation, and tormenting others purely for pleasure.

Causes vary, but consequences are serious

Attributing the causes of mobbing solely to the individual traits of supervisors or colleagues would be an oversimplification. Within entire organizations and specific teams, numerous relationships, processes, emotions, and external factors come into play, meaning that even a minor trigger can initiate undesirable behaviours. Mobbing can stem from an autocratic management style, where there is little to no emphasis on building relationships. Excessive workplace stress can also contribute, as employees, in search of a “scapegoat,” may use harassment to release frustration and tension. Additionally, mobbing behaviours may arise from a weak organizational culture, where there is a lack of proper procedures to prevent violence, intolerance, and all forms of misconduct.

Mobbing has serious, long-term, and tangible consequences not only for the victims of harassment but also for the organizations where labour laws are violated. On an individual level, it primarily leads to: 

• health consequences: physical (insomnia, loss of appetite, headaches, cardiovascular problems, high blood pressure) and mental (risk of depression, neurosis, anxiety disorders, or post-traumatic stress disorder – PTSD),
• cognitive impairment (difficulty with concentration, memory, and decision-making,
• decrease in motivation and engagement,
• social isolation (feelings of alienation and loneliness),
• personal life issues (tensions in social and family relationships).

From an organizational perspective, the following consequences of mobbing can be identified: 

• increased sick leave absences (frequent medical leave reduces team productivity,
• high employee turnover (departures generate costs related to recruitment and training of new staff),
• decline in efficiency and work quality,
• deterioration of team atmosphere (the presence of mobbing leads to tensions and conflicts, affecting collaboration and communication),
• loss of reputation and trust (companies where mobbing occurs may lose the trust of clients and business partners, impacting their market position),
• financial costs (organizations may face significant expenses related to legal proceedings and compensation for mobbing victims).

Mobbing and polish law

Provisions regarding mobbing were introduced into Polish legislation over 20 years ago. Since then, employees have had the right to seek legal action, claiming compensation if they have experienced mobbing or terminated their employment because of it. They can also seek damages for harm suffered if mobbing has caused health problems. Each year, Polish courts handle around 700 such cases, while the State Labor Inspectorate (PIP) receives over 1,200 complaints from employees regarding behaviours that bear the hallmarks of mobbing.

Not all complaints are approved, as mobbing is not always easy to document (e.g., through preserved correspondence, witness testimonies, or recordings). Additionally, it is not always possible to distinguish mobbing from other forms of misconduct, such as harassment. According to the Labor Code, mobbing is characterized by long-term and repeated actions, whereas harassment can occur as a one-time incident. Not all workplace abuses are immediately reported to courts or the labour inspectorate. These institutions usually handle cases where the employer themselves is the mobber. However, if mobbing occurs between colleagues, the first step for the victim is usually to report the issue within the company. At this stage, the organization should activate internal procedures and work toward resolving the situation.

The planned amendments to the Labor Code will impose additional obligations on companies, such as requiring anti-mobbing training and introducing mediation procedures when mobbing occurs. If these changes take effect, the minimum compensation threshold for mobbing victims will also increase. Currently, this amount equals one month's salary, but the Ministry of Labor intends to raise it to the equivalent of six months' salary. 

Setting boundaries closes the gate to mobbing

Preventing mobbing requires commitment from employers, HR departments, and employees alike. Each of these groups plays a crucial role in creating a healthy and safe work environment.

What can a company do?

• Develop an effective anti-mobbing policy – establish clear anti-mobbing regulations, introduce a code of ethics and workplace values, and regularly monitor the work environment through surveys and interviews.
• Conduct training and awareness campaigns – organize workshops on mobbing prevention, provide employees with knowledge about their rights, and educate managers on how to recognize and respond to mobbing incidents.
• Implement clear reporting procedures – create confidential and accessible channels for reporting mobbing cases and ensure that complaints are taken seriously and investigated properly.
• Monitor management styles – observe leadership approaches and encourage managers to hold regular discussions with employees.
• Enforce consequences for mobbing perpetrators – introduce disciplinary measures, including potential termination of employment.

What can HR do?

• Create a space for dialogue – ensure that employees can report mobbing cases without fear, hold regular one-on-one meetings with employees, monitor workplace sentiment, and identify potential issues.
• Mediate and resolve conflicts – implement mediation programs, collaborate with psychologists, and utilize support programs such as Employee Assistance Programs (EAP).
• Screen candidates for managerial positions – assess their interpersonal skills and team management abilities.
• Regularly evaluate organizational climate and strengthen workplace culture – conduct employee satisfaction surveys, assess the work environment, and analyse turnover and absenteeism rates that may indicate mobbing-related issues. 

What can employees do?

• Develop assertiveness and self-awareness – learn assertive communication to clearly express personal boundaries, build stress management skills, and strengthen psychological resilience.
• Know their rights – familiarize themselves with laws regarding mobbing and legal protections and know how to seek support from a lawyer or labour inspectorate.
• Support other employees – actively respond to misconduct, report irregularities, and contribute to a healthy team dynamic.
• Strengthen self-esteem, self-worth, and confidence – take care of mental health and overall well-being, both at work and in personal life.

Perhaps the biggest challenge for many of us is working on our own assertiveness and setting boundaries. However, boundaries in the workplace are not just about comfort; they serve as a protection tool against mobbing. Setting boundaries means clearly communicating what is acceptable and what is not—both to supervisors and colleagues. It involves the ability to say no, respond to inappropriate behaviour, and enforce mutual respect. This is not always easy, especially in environments prone to abuse, but the absence of boundaries allows the problem to escalate.

„ The boundaries we set for others are a reflection of the respect we have for ourselves.” – Henry Cloud