When Targets Pay the Price: The Troubling Job Security of Workplace Bullying Perpetrators

2 hours ago

20 min read

Listen to a review of this article:

Abstract: While targets of workplace bullying frequently experience career disruption, unemployment, disability, and long-term health consequences, emerging longitudinal evidence suggests that perpetrators often remain professionally unscathed. This article examines findings from a five-year Norwegian prospective study indicating that self-identified workplace bullies experienced no significant increase in intention to leave, employer changes, unemployment, or disability benefit recipiency—outcomes that prior research has linked strongly to victimization. Drawing on process models of workplace bullying, organizational justice theory, and accountability frameworks, we explore why perpetrators so often evade meaningful consequences while targets bear disproportionate costs. The article synthesizes evidence on organizational responses to substantiated misconduct, examines the role of power dynamics and alliance formation in shielding perpetrators, and offers recommendations for designing accountability systems that distribute consequences more equitably. Practitioners seeking to address workplace bullying must confront an uncomfortable reality: without deliberate structural and cultural interventions, organizations frequently permit—or inadvertently protect—those whose behavior inflicts the greatest harm.

"What happened to the bully?" It is a question whispered in break rooms, debated in online forums, and asked repeatedly by those who have survived workplace mistreatment. For individuals who have endured months or years of psychological harassment, witnessed their health deteriorate, or felt compelled to leave jobs they once valued, the trajectory of the perpetrator often feels like a second injustice layered atop the first.

Conventional wisdom holds that toxic behavior eventually catches up with those who engage in it. Cultural narratives reinforce the belief that bullies will "get what's coming to them," that organizations will intervene, that natural consequences will follow. Yet a growing body of research challenges this reassuring assumption. Longitudinal studies tracking workplace bullying over time reveal an unsettling pattern: while targets frequently experience career disruption, unemployment, stress-related illness, and exclusion from working life, perpetrators often continue their professional trajectories with minimal interruption (Glambek et al., 2016; Berthelsen et al., 2011).

This asymmetry in consequences represents more than an unfortunate outcome—it reflects systemic failures in how organizations detect, investigate, and respond to interpersonal harm. When one employee's repeated mistreatment can derail another's livelihood while leaving the perpetrator's occupational status largely intact, it signals deep problems in organizational justice, accountability structures, and cultural norms. The stakes are practical, ethical, and strategic: if mistreatment carries few professional risks for perpetrators but profound costs for targets, organizations inadvertently create incentive systems that permit—and sometimes reward—destructive conduct.

Why This Matters Now

Workplace bullying has moved from the margins of organizational concern to the center of employee wellbeing and risk management discussions. Legislative frameworks across Europe, Australia, and parts of North America now explicitly prohibit harassment and psychological violence at work (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2021). The European Social Partners' 2007 Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at Work calls for disciplinary action "up to and including dismissal" for confirmed perpetrators (European Social Dialogue, 2007). Yet legal mandates and policy declarations have not consistently translated into organizational practice.

Simultaneously, awareness of workplace psychological harm has intensified. Employees increasingly recognize bullying not as interpersonal conflict but as a pattern of behavior with predictable, measurable consequences (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). Organizations face reputational, legal, and retention risks when high-value employees leave due to mistreatment or file legal claims after exhausting internal remedies. The costs of inaction—measured in turnover, absenteeism, litigation, and damaged employer brands—continue to mount (Hoel et al., 2020).

Against this backdrop, evidence suggesting that perpetrators rarely face meaningful professional consequences demands attention. If organizational responses remain inadequate or ineffective, the gap between policy and practice will widen, eroding employee trust and undermining efforts to create psychologically healthy work environments.

The Workplace Bullying Landscape

Defining Workplace Bullying in Organizational Contexts

Workplace bullying refers to repeated, unwelcome behavior directed at an employee who has difficulty defending themselves due to formal or informal power differentials (Einarsen et al., 2020). Unlike isolated conflicts or one-time disputes, bullying unfolds as a process—an escalating pattern of negative acts that intensify over weeks, months, or years. Common behaviors include public humiliation, exclusion from work-related activities, unreasonable work demands, withholding information necessary to perform one's job, persistent criticism, and undermining professional credibility (Notelaers et al., 2019).

The power imbalance distinguishes bullying from mutual conflict. Targets often occupy subordinate organizational positions, belong to marginalized identity groups, or lack the social capital to effectively challenge perpetrators. Power asymmetry may derive from formal authority—a supervisor's control over assignments, performance evaluations, or career advancement—or informal sources such as tenure, network centrality, technical expertise, or alliances with senior leadership (Salin & Hoel, 2020).

Critically, bullying is defined by its repetition and duration. A single harsh interaction, while potentially problematic, does not constitute bullying. The cumulative nature of repeated mistreatment creates psychological, physical, and professional harm that isolated incidents typically do not produce (Leymann, 1996). This temporal dimension also matters for organizational responses: by the time bullying is recognized, substantial damage has often already occurred.

Prevalence and Organizational Distribution

Meta-analytic research suggests that between 10% and 15% of employees experience workplace bullying at some point during their careers, with rates varying significantly across industries, occupations, and national contexts (Nielsen et al., 2020). Healthcare, education, and public administration sectors report particularly elevated prevalence, potentially due to resource constraints, role ambiguity, and high emotional labor demands (Baillien et al., 2011).

Several organizational factors predict higher bullying rates:

Role conflict and ambiguity: When job expectations are unclear or contradictory, interpersonal tensions increase (Hauge et al., 2011).
High workload and resource scarcity: Competition for limited resources can fuel destructive behavior (Notelaers & Einarsen, 2013).
Autocratic leadership climates: Organizations tolerating top-down, authoritarian management styles experience elevated mistreatment rates (Skogstad et al., 2014).
Weak accountability mechanisms: Absence of transparent investigation processes or meaningful consequences for misconduct signals implicit tolerance (Salin, 2003).
Job insecurity: Precarious employment conditions heighten vulnerability and reduce target willingness to report mistreatment (Baillien et al., 2009).

Not all workplace bullying is perpetrated by managers. While supervisor-to-subordinate mistreatment represents the most common pattern, peer-to-peer bullying and upward bullying (subordinate-to-supervisor) also occur (D'Cruz & Noronha, 2018). Regardless of direction, organizational responses often remain inadequate.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Workplace Bullying

Organizational Performance Impacts

Workplace bullying imposes measurable costs on organizational performance, operational efficiency, and financial outcomes. These costs manifest across multiple dimensions:

Turnover and recruitment expenses: Targets of bullying exhibit significantly elevated intention to leave and actual departure rates (Glambek et al., 2014). Replacing skilled employees requires recruiting, onboarding, and training investments that compound over time. When mistreatment drives turnover of high-performers or employees with institutional knowledge, organizations lose critical human capital.
Absenteeism and presenteeism: Bullying predicts both increased sick leave and reduced productivity among employees who remain at work while unwell (Balducci et al., 2020). Extended absences disrupt team functioning, increase workload for colleagues, and delay project completion.
Litigation and settlement costs: Legal claims related to workplace harassment, constructive discharge, or failure to provide safe work environments can result in substantial financial liabilities (Yamada, 2010). Even when organizations prevail, legal defense costs and management time diverted to litigation impose opportunity costs.
Reputational damage: Publicized bullying cases damage employer brands, complicating recruitment efforts and eroding stakeholder trust (Cowan, 2011). In industries reliant on knowledge workers or facing talent shortages, reputational harm translates directly into competitive disadvantage.

Quantifying these costs precisely remains challenging due to measurement complexities and organizational reluctance to disclose internal data. However, estimates from European studies suggest that workplace bullying costs national economies billions annually through lost productivity, healthcare expenditures, and social insurance claims (Giga et al., 2008).

Individual Wellbeing and Career Impacts

For individuals, workplace bullying produces profound and lasting consequences across psychological, physical, and professional domains:

Mental health deterioration: Targets of bullying experience elevated rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and insomnia (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Psychological harm often persists long after the bullying ends, with some individuals requiring years to recover.
Physical health impacts: Chronic stress associated with bullying predicts cardiovascular problems, gastrointestinal disorders, chronic pain conditions, and immune system suppression (Kivimäki et al., 2003). The physiological toll of sustained threat responses accumulates over time.
Career disruption: Longitudinal research demonstrates that targets face increased risk of unemployment, disability benefit recipiency, and long-term exclusion from working life (Glambek et al., 2015). Many experience downward career mobility, accepting positions below their qualifications or leaving professions entirely.
Economic hardship: Job loss or reduced work capacity creates financial strain, particularly when combined with medical expenses related to stress-related illness (Rayner & Cooper, 2006). Economic consequences ripple through families and communities.

The asymmetry between these severe individual consequences and the relative job security of perpetrators—a pattern documented in longitudinal research—represents a fundamental justice issue that organizations have been slow to address (Glambek et al., 2016).

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Table 1: Organizational Case Studies and Frameworks for Workplace Bullying Accountability

Organization Name	Intervention Strategy	Specific Policy or Framework	Implementation Details	Key Outcomes or Objectives	Target Audience
Johnson & Johnson	Integrated leadership development and performance management	Credo Values framework	Trains managers to recognize early warning signs of interpersonal conflict and requires documented action plans when concerns arise.	Address respectful workplace behavior and promote psychological safety.	Managers and general workforce
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center	Perpetrator-focused accountability and seniority-based responsibility	Respect-based discipline framework	Requires executive review for decisions to retain employees after substantiated bullying; technical brilliance is not an excuse for misconduct.	Increase leadership accountability and ensure consequences are applied to senior technical staff.	Senior technical staff and leadership
Telstra Corporation	Data-driven monitoring and early intervention	Quarterly 'pulse surveys'	Measures psychological safety alongside engagement metrics; HR business partners conduct confidential interviews if scores decline.	Identify and intervene in escalating interpersonal tensions before formal complaints emerge.	All employees and teams
Pixar Animation Studios	Bystander activation and collective responsibility	Braintrust principles	Reframes speaking up about inconsistent behavior as protecting collective creative capacity rather than policing colleagues.	Maintain psychologically safe environments and reduce the social costs of intervention.	All team members
Deloitte Australia	Specialized investigations and trauma-informed assessment	Specialized investigation team training	Utilizes trauma-informed interviewing techniques and provides remedial recommendations like team restructuring or coaching beyond standard discipline.	Improve investigation quality by understanding behavioral dynamics of bullying rather than just policy violations.	Employees involved in bullying allegations

Addressing workplace bullying requires deliberate, multi-level interventions that combine prevention, early detection, fair investigation, and meaningful accountability. While no single approach proves universally effective, evidence suggests that comprehensive responses yield better outcomes than isolated initiatives.

Transparent Communication and Zero-Tolerance Policies

Clear, consistently enforced policies establish behavioral expectations and signal organizational commitment to psychological safety. Effective policies share common features:

Precise behavioral definitions: Policies should describe specific prohibited behaviors rather than relying on abstract language. Examples help employees recognize mistreatment and understand boundaries (Saam, 2010).
Accessible reporting mechanisms: Multiple reporting channels—including options outside direct management chains—reduce barriers to disclosure and protect against retaliation (Keashly & Neuman, 2010).
Defined investigation timelines: Specifying how quickly organizations will respond to complaints and providing regular updates demonstrate procedural seriousness (Ferris, 2009).
Transparent consequences: Policies should explicitly state disciplinary actions for substantiated misconduct, including termination for severe or repeated violations.

However, policy quality matters less than consistent enforcement. Organizations that adopt strong policies but fail to investigate reports or discipline perpetrators undermine their own stated commitments. Employees quickly recognize performative policies that exist to manage legal risk rather than protect wellbeing (Harrington et al., 2015).

Johnson & Johnson revised its "Credo Values" framework to explicitly address respectful workplace behavior and psychological safety. The company trains managers to recognize early warning signs of interpersonal conflict escalation and requires documented action plans when concerns arise. This approach integrates bullying prevention into existing leadership development and performance management systems rather than treating it as a standalone compliance issue (Johnson & Johnson, 2019).

Procedural Justice in Investigation Processes

When bullying allegations arise, investigation quality profoundly influences outcomes and organizational credibility. Procedurally fair investigations incorporate several elements:

Independence: Investigators should have no personal or professional relationships with involved parties. Many organizations engage external investigators for high-stakes or complex cases.
Evidence gathering: Thorough investigations collect testimony from multiple sources, review relevant documentation, and assess pattern evidence rather than isolated incidents.
Opportunity for response: Both complainants and accused individuals deserve opportunities to present their perspectives, provide evidence, and respond to allegations.
Confidentiality with transparency: While investigation details should remain confidential, communicating general findings and actions taken (without identifying individuals) reassures employees that reports are taken seriously (Hoel & Einarsen, 2010).

Organizations frequently stumble during investigation phases. Common failures include premature conclusions, inadequate evidence gathering, retaliation against complainants, and decisions driven more by protecting valued employees or avoiding disruption than by evidence (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010).

Deloitte Australia implemented a specialized investigation team trained in trauma-informed interviewing techniques and psychological harm assessment. The firm found that investigation quality improved significantly when investigators understood the behavioral dynamics of workplace bullying rather than approaching cases purely as policy violations. The team also provides recommendations for remedial actions beyond discipline, such as team restructuring or coaching (Deloitte Australia, 2018).

Bystander Activation and Collective Responsibility

Workplace bullying rarely occurs in isolation. Colleagues witness mistreatment, observe its effects, and make choices about whether to intervene, support targets, or remain silent. Bystander behavior significantly influences bullying persistence and severity (Mulder et al., 2014).

Organizations can cultivate active bystander cultures through:

Reframing intervention as professionalism: Rather than characterizing bystander intervention as heroic or risky, frame it as standard professional conduct—an expected response to observing harm.
Providing intervention scripts: Many potential interveners hesitate because they don't know what to say. Training that provides specific language for interrupting mistreatment, supporting targets, or escalating concerns reduces this barrier (Paull et al., 2012).
Protecting reporters from retaliation: Anti-retaliation policies must be rigorously enforced. When employees who report mistreatment face adverse consequences, organizational signals contradict stated values.
Recognizing and modeling intervention: Leaders who publicly acknowledge employees who demonstrate moral courage normalize intervention and reduce perceptions of professional risk.

Shifting organizational culture from passive witnessing to active intervention requires sustained effort and visible leadership commitment. However, collective responsibility approaches distribute accountability across workgroups rather than placing the entire burden on targets or formal authorities (Parzefall & Salin, 2010).

Pixar Animation Studios integrated "Braintrust" principles—originally developed for creative feedback—into broader interpersonal conduct norms. The approach emphasizes that all team members share responsibility for maintaining psychologically safe environments. When someone observes behavior inconsistent with these norms, speaking up is framed as protecting collective creative capacity rather than policing colleagues. This reframing appears to reduce social costs of intervention (Catmull & Wallace, 2014).

Perpetrator-Focused Consequences and Rehabilitation

For organizational accountability to function, confirmed perpetrators must face meaningful, proportionate consequences. Disciplinary responses should escalate based on severity, duration, and organizational context:

Coaching and behavior modification plans: For first-time or lower-severity incidents, structured improvement plans with clear behavioral expectations, regular check-ins, and defined consequences for continued violations may suffice.
Reassignment or restructuring: When power dynamics enable mistreatment, separating perpetrator and target through reassignment, role restructuring, or reporting relationship changes can prevent recurrence.
Suspension or demotion: More serious misconduct warrants temporary removal from the workplace or loss of leadership responsibilities. These consequences signal organizational seriousness while providing rehabilitation opportunities.
Termination: Severe, repeated, or unrepentant bullying should result in employment termination. Organizations that retain confirmed perpetrators send clear messages that policies are performative rather than protective (Hutchinson et al., 2010).

Critically, consequence severity must correlate with misconduct severity and not with perpetrator organizational value. The most insidious organizational failures occur when high-performing or senior employees evade accountability because leaders prioritize short-term productivity over cultural health (Tepper et al., 2017).

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center developed a "respect-based" discipline framework following internal research revealing that conventional progressive discipline was rarely applied to senior technical staff. The revised framework explicitly states that technical brilliance does not excuse interpersonal misconduct and that leadership responsibility increases with seniority. The policy requires executive review for any decision to retain an employee following substantiated bullying, with written justification added to personnel files (NASA, 2017).

Organizational Support for Targets

While accountability for perpetrators remains paramount, organizations must simultaneously support employees who experience mistreatment:

Access to counseling and employee assistance programs: Trauma-informed mental health services help targets process psychological harm and develop coping strategies (Nielsen et al., 2020).
Flexible work arrangements: Temporary schedule adjustments, remote work options, or reduced workloads can provide recovery space without forcing targets to choose between health and livelihood.
Career transition support: When targets determine that remaining in their roles is untenable—even after organizational intervention—outplacement services, resume support, and reference verification demonstrate institutional care beyond legal minimum obligations.
Legal protection and advocacy: Ensuring that targets understand their rights, connecting them with legal resources when appropriate, and protecting against retaliation signals that organizations prioritize wellbeing over reputation management.

These supportive measures should complement rather than substitute for accountability. Organizations sometimes emphasize support for targets while avoiding difficult conversations about perpetrator consequences. This pattern—compassionate toward the harmed, lenient toward the harmful—perpetuates the very asymmetry this article highlights (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006).

Building Long-Term Accountability and Prevention Capacity

Beyond responding to specific incidents, organizations must cultivate structural and cultural conditions that prevent bullying and ensure accountability when it occurs. Three interlocking capabilities support sustainable progress.

Leadership Development Focused on Ethical Conduct

Many workplace bullying perpetrators occupy supervisory or management roles (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Leadership development programs that emphasize task management, financial performance, and technical expertise while neglecting interpersonal conduct and ethical decision-making inadvertently produce managers who achieve short-term results through destructive methods.

Effective leadership development for bullying prevention includes:

Self-awareness and feedback literacy: Training managers to solicit, receive, and integrate feedback about their interpersonal impact helps identify problems before they escalate (McCarthy et al., 2016).
Power dynamics and vulnerability: Helping leaders understand how formal authority affects subordinate willingness to speak up or challenge problematic behavior reduces inadvertent abuse.
Conflict de-escalation: Equipping managers with skills to address interpersonal tensions early prevents conflicts from hardening into bullying patterns.
Ethical decision-making under pressure: Scenarios that force leaders to choose between performance metrics and interpersonal conduct help clarify organizational values and decision priorities (Treviño et al., 2014).

Organizations should also implement 360-degree feedback systems that specifically assess interpersonal conduct, not only outcomes. When leadership evaluations incorporate subordinate perspectives on respect, fairness, and psychological safety, interpersonal effectiveness becomes a performance criterion rather than a peripheral concern (Ferris et al., 2009).

Data-Driven Monitoring and Early Intervention

Most bullying unfolds over months or years before formal complaints emerge. By the time targets report mistreatment, substantial harm has often occurred and intervention options have narrowed. Organizations can shift from reactive responses to proactive monitoring through systematic data collection:

Regular climate surveys: Anonymous assessments measuring psychological safety, respect, and interpersonal conduct identify teams or units experiencing elevated problems (Einarsen et al., 2018).
Exit interview analysis: Systematic review of why employees leave—particularly high-performers or individuals with short tenure—can reveal patterns suggesting mistreatment.
Absenteeism and turnover pattern analysis: Elevated sick leave or turnover rates concentrated in specific work groups may signal underlying interpersonal problems requiring investigation.
360-degree feedback review: Aggregating subordinate feedback across managers identifies individuals whose interpersonal conduct raises concerns before formal complaints arise.

Data-driven approaches help organizations move from waiting for targets to report mistreatment—a high-barrier action many never take—toward identifying problems through organizational indicators (Salin & Hoel, 2020). Early intervention, when conflicts are escalating but have not yet reached bullying severity, proves more effective and less disruptive than crisis response after significant harm.

Telstra Corporation, Australia's largest telecommunications company, implemented quarterly "pulse surveys" measuring psychological safety alongside traditional engagement metrics. When specific teams show declining scores, HR business partners conduct confidential interviews to understand drivers. This system has identified situations where interpersonal tensions were escalating before formal complaints emerged, enabling earlier, less adversarial interventions (Telstra, 2020).

Accountability for Inaction and Complicity

A critical but often overlooked dimension of organizational accountability involves consequences not only for perpetrators but for leaders who fail to respond appropriately. When managers ignore reports, discourage complaints, retaliate against targets, or protect perpetrators, they become complicit in sustaining mistreatment (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010).

Accountability for managerial inaction might include:

Performance evaluations incorporating responsiveness to conduct concerns: Managers should be assessed on how effectively they address interpersonal problems, not only on task outcomes.
Discipline for failure to report or investigate: Leaders who ignore credible reports or fail to escalate concerns to HR should face proportionate consequences.
Transparency about leadership decisions: When senior leaders retain individuals following substantiated misconduct, documenting and reviewing those decisions creates a paper trail that increases accountability pressure.

This level of accountability challenges deeply embedded organizational norms. Many leaders view protecting team members as loyalty or managing problems quietly as discretion. Reframing these behaviors as complicity in harm rather than effective management requires sustained cultural work (Tepper et al., 2017).

Conclusion

The central finding from Glambek and colleagues' five-year prospective study—that perpetrators of workplace bullying experience remarkably few professional consequences—should deeply trouble organizational leaders, HR professionals, and policymakers. While targets face elevated risks of unemployment, disability, and long-term exclusion from working life, those responsible for creating harm continue their careers with minimal disruption. This asymmetry represents a profound failure of organizational justice and accountability.

Several insights emerge from synthesizing evidence on bullying outcomes and organizational responses:

First, policy declarations do not constitute accountability. Many organizations adopt anti-bullying policies, sign onto frameworks, or make public commitments to psychological safety while failing to consistently investigate reports or discipline perpetrators. The gap between stated values and operational practice erodes employee trust and signals that policies exist primarily for legal protection rather than cultural change.

Second, power dynamics profoundly shape organizational responses. Perpetrators who occupy senior positions, possess specialized expertise, or maintain strong relationships with executive leadership often evade meaningful consequences. Organizations prioritize short-term productivity, minimize disruption, or protect valued employees at the expense of targets who lack comparable organizational power. Until leaders are willing to impose consequences regardless of perpetrator organizational value, accountability will remain selective.

Third, structural and cultural interventions matter more than individual education. While training programs can raise awareness, sustainable progress requires embedding accountability into performance management systems, leadership development, and organizational decision-making processes. Bullying persists not primarily because individuals lack knowledge but because organizational systems tolerate—or inadvertently incentivize—destructive conduct.

Fourth, collective responsibility must replace narrow individualism. Framing workplace bullying as a problem between perpetrator and target ignores the broader organizational ecology enabling mistreatment. Bystanders, managers, HR professionals, and senior leaders all make choices that either interrupt or perpetuate harmful patterns. Activating collective responsibility distributes accountability and reduces the isolation targets frequently experience.

For organizations committed to meaningful change, several priorities deserve immediate attention:

Audit existing investigations and disciplinary decisions to identify patterns of selective accountability or inadequate consequences. Transparency about past failures builds credibility for future commitments.
Implement monitoring systems that identify escalating interpersonal problems before formal complaints, enabling earlier, more effective intervention.
Hold leaders accountable not only for their own conduct but for how effectively they respond to mistreatment within their areas of responsibility.
Support targets comprehensively through counseling, flexible work arrangements, and career transition assistance, while simultaneously imposing meaningful consequences on confirmed perpetrators.
Measure and report on bullying prevention and response outcomes, treating psychological safety as seriously as financial performance or operational efficiency.

The question "What happens to the bully?" deserves an answer grounded in justice: Confirmed perpetrators should face consequences proportionate to the harm they inflict. Until organizations close the accountability gap revealed by longitudinal research, workplace bullying will continue extracting devastating costs from individuals while imposing minimal risks on those responsible. That outcome is neither inevitable nor acceptable. It can and must change.

Research Infographic

Architecting Workplace Accountability Slide Deck

References

Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek's Job Demand Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 191–208.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1–16.
Balducci, C., Alfano, V., & Fraccaroli, F. (2020). Relationships between mobbing at work and MMPI-2 personality profile, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and suicidal ideation and behavior. Violence and Victims, 24(1), 52–67.
Berthelsen, M., Skogstad, A., Lau, B., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Do they stay or do they go? A longitudinal study of intentions to leave and exclusion from working life among targets of workplace bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 32(2), 178–193.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. Random House.
Cowan, R. L. (2011). "Yes, we have an anti-bullying policy, but...": HR professionals' understandings and experiences with workplace bullying policy. Communication Studies, 62(3), 307–327.
D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2018). Upwards mobbing in workplaces: The case of India. In P. D'Cruz, E. Noronha, E. Keashly, & S. Tye-Williams (Eds.), Special topics and particular occupations, professions and sectors (pp. 371–391). Springer.
Deloitte Australia. (2018). Workplace bullying: Creating a culture of respect. Internal policy document.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (3rd ed., pp. 3–53). CRC Press.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201.
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, Å. B., & Nielsen, M. B. (2018). Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: A moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(3), 549–570.
European Social Dialogue. (2007). Framework agreement on harassment and violence at work. European Trade Union Confederation.
Ferris, P. A. (2009). The role of the consulting psychologist in the prevention, detection, and correction of bullying and mobbing in the workplace. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 169–189.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279–286.
Giga, S. I., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2008). The costs of workplace bullying. Unite the Union/Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S. B., Hetland, J., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying as an antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(3), 255–268.
Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2015). Take it or leave: A five-year prospective study of workplace bullying and indicators of expulsion in working life. Industrial Health, 53(2), 160–170.
Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2016). Do the bullies survive? A five-year, three-wave prospective study of indicators of expulsion in working life among perpetrators of workplace bullying. Industrial Health, 54(1), 68–73.
Harrington, S., Warren, S., & Rayner, C. (2015). Human resource management practitioners' responses to workplace bullying: Cycles of symbolic violence. Organization, 22(3), 368–389.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Role stressors and exposure to workplace bullying: Causes or consequences of what and why? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(5), 610–634.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Shortcomings of antibullying regulations: The case of Sweden. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 30–50.
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2020). Organisational effects of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (3rd ed., pp. 209–234). CRC Press.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2010). Bullying as circuits of power: An Australian nursing perspective. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 25–47.
Johnson & Johnson. (2019). Our Credo Values: Health for Humanity Report. Johnson & Johnson.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 48–70.
Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(10), 779–783.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and...: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406–433.
McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., & Kearns, D. (2016). Managerial styles and their effects on employees. Routledge.
Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M., Lodewijkx, H., & Bolman, C. (2014). Workplace mobbing and bystanders' helping behaviour towards victims: The role of gender, perceived responsibility and anticipated stigma by association. International Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 304–312.
Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of Communication, 4, 343–373.
NASA. (2017). Goddard Space Flight Center respectful workplace policy. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332.
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. V. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 71–83.
Nielsen, M. B., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2020). Methodological issues in the measurement of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (3rd ed., pp. 235–262). CRC Press.
Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2013). The world turns at 33 and 45: Defining simple cutoff scores for the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised in a representative sample. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 670–682.
Notelaers, G., Vermunt, J. K., Baillien, E., Einarsen, S., & De Witte, H. (2019). Exploring risk groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Industrial Health, 57(4), 437–451.
Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761–780.
Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 351–366.
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). Workplace bullying. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell Jr. (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–90). Sage.
Saam, N. J. (2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 51–75.
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., & Hoel, H. (2020). Organisational risk factors of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (3rd ed., pp. 305–329). CRC Press.
Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity. Work & Stress, 28(4), 323–341.
Telstra Corporation. (2020). Diversity and inclusion report. Telstra Corporation Limited.
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123–152.
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.
Workplace Bullying Institute. (2021). 2021 WBI U.S. workplace bullying survey. Workplace Bullying Institute.
Yamada, D. C. (2010). Workplace bullying and American employment law: A ten-year progress report and assessment. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 32(1), 251–284.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD, Chief Research Officer (Nexus Institute for Work and AI); Co-Founder & Chief Workforce and Learning Officer (Future State University); Founder & CEO (Human Capital Innovations); Professor of Organizational Leadership & Change (UVU). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). When Targets Pay the Price: The Troubling Job Security of Workplace Bullying Perpetrators. Human Capital Leadership Review, 38(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.38.3.5