Reframing Workplace Bullying: How the Narrative Got Stuck

For far too long, the dominant narrative around workplace bullying has centered on the person being bullied. This focus is reductive not because of who that person is, but because it consistently diverts attention away from the behavior producing the harm. 

Language plays a central role in this redirection. Terms such as "target" reduce a person to an object of action rather than recognizing them as a person experiencing abuse. In doing so, the language strips away humanity while allowing the behavior—and the person responsible for it—to fade into the background of the conversation.

The Problem with Person‑Focused Explanations

Even conversations led by people who have experienced workplace bullying often return to the characteristics of those being harmed. The discussion tends to frame bullied employees as “high performers,” as individuals who spoke up or reported wrongdoing, or as people whose competence threatened others.

Other times, the framing shifts in a more dismissive direction—suggesting these are individuals who are difficult, annoying, or socially awkward, and that their behavior somehow explains what happened to them.

In every version, the focus remains the same: attention is directed toward the person experiencing abuse rather than toward the abuse itself. 

How Definitions Reinforce the Misfocus

This framing isn’t limited to informal discussions. It is embedded in many of the definitions used to describe workplace bullying. Widely adopted legislative, policy, and professional association definitions describe bullying as a set of repeated behaviors—verbal, nonverbal, cyber, emotional, or physical—directed at a specific person, with emphasis placed on the impact of those behaviors on that individual’s personal and professional life. 

What is notably absent is sustained attention to the bully. The behavior is described and the harm is acknowledged, but the person engaging in the abuse remains unnamed and largely unexamined.

When the Bully Disappears, Accountability Disappears

When the bully is not centered in the analysis, responsibility becomes diffuse. The behavior is reframed as an interpersonal issue—something rooted in personality differences, communication styles, or relational conflict—rather than as a pattern of abuse. 

Within this framing, harm is acknowledged, but its source remains individualized and abstract. Attention shifts away from behavior and toward relationships, misunderstandings, or mutual dynamics. 

As a result, the burden of action falls on the person being bullied. They are expected to report, document, seek support, manage their responses, and adjust their behavior within the relationship. The person being abused becomes not only the one harmed, but also the one responsible for resolving the situation, while the bully remains outside the scope of examination and intervention. 

Why the Bully Is Left Out of the Frame

The absence of the workplace bully from analysis is not accidental. One reason is that many bullies occupy positions of authority. They are supervisors, managers, senior staff, or individuals whose roles grant them credibility and protection within the organization. Examining their behavior would require examining power—how it is used, how it is shielded, and how it is rewarded.

Another reason is conceptual. Much of what is written and taught about workplace bullying focuses on impact rather than source. There is comparatively little research that centers the bully as a subject of sustained analysis, particularly in organizational contexts. As a result, bullying is more often described as a set of harmful experiences than as abusive conduct enacted by specific people within specific power structures.

Including the bully in the frame also expands the problem in ways workplaces may find uncomfortable. Once behavior is examined alongside role, authority, and organizational protection, bullying can no longer be treated as an interpersonal issue between individuals. It becomes a systemic concern—one that implicates leadership, culture, and institutional accountability.

This limitation is reinforced by the absence of a universally accepted definition of workplace bullying. Early ideas—particularly those that center the person being harmed while leaving the bully largely unexamined—have been widely adopted with minimal conceptual challenge. The result is a field that has expanded in volume without a corresponding expansion in scope.

Leaving the bully out keeps the problem smaller, more manageable, and easier to individualize. Including them makes workplace bullying harder to contain, harder to dismiss, and harder to address without broader scrutiny.

Why This Matters

The conversation continues to orbit the person being harmed—not because the harm is unimportant, but because focusing there is safer. It avoids confronting behavior that may be normalized, rewarded, or shielded by workplace structures. It allows systems to appear responsive without challenging the conditions that allow bullying to persist.

But this misfocus has consequences. When attention remains fixed on the person experiencing harm, the problem itself is never fully examined. Bullying continues not because it is inevitable, but because it is being understood inaccurately. A social problem framed around impact rather than source cannot be meaningfully addressed.

As long as workplace bullying is analyzed through the experiences and responses of those being abused, the behavior that produces the harm remains intact. The result is a cycle in which individuals are scrutinized, adjusted, and managed—while the conditions that allow bullying to occur remain unchanged.