Exploring the enablers, motivators, and triggers of upwards bullying

ABSTRACT

Few studies have examined the dynamics involved in situations where managers are bullied by subordinates – a phenomenon known as upwards bullying. In this study, we combine interview data from targets and subject matter experts with data from case decision records to advance knowledge of the antecedents, grounded in Salin's model of enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors [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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610003]. Our thematic analysis showed that enabling factors establish foundational conditions for upwards bullying by delegitimising a manager’s formal power and decreasing the costs to perpetrators; motivators reinforce upwards bullying by fostering desirable outcomes for the subordinates or undesirable outcomes for the target managers, or assisting subordinates to navigate a competitive environment; and precipitators trigger upwards bullying in response to organisational change. Combining these factors, upwards bullying can be viewed as a logical adaptation to stressful or ineffective work environments. Finally, guided by the interviews, our study extends knowledge of the personal impact of upwards bullying for targeted managers, highlighting the detrimental effects when implicit understandings of the self and the world are challenged. Overall, prevention efforts should recognise this form of bullying as a sign of deeper organisational issues, and tackle the unique and shared antecedents as a system of risk factors.

KEYWORDS:

• Workplace bullying
• upwards bullying
• subordinate-initiated bullying
• antecedents
• thematic analysis

Bullying in the workplace is a severe social stressor (Hauge et al., 2010) that has received considerable scholarly attention for more than three decades (Samnani & Singh, 2012). At its core, workplace bullying has defining features that distinguish it from other types of workplace aggression and mistreatment (Hershcovis, 2011): the use of persistent and repeated negative behaviour that involves a power imbalance between the parties and causes harm to the target (Einarsen, 2000; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Studies from around the world have consistently identified a range of detrimental effects of bullying for targeted individuals, such as mental health problems, physical health problems, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, generalised strain, psychosomatic problems, and burnout (Boudrias et al., 2021; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012); and for employer organisations, including lower job satisfaction and organisational commitment and greater absenteeism and intention to leave (Boudrias et al., 2021; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).

Workplace bullying is conceptualised as an organisational problem (Plimmer et al., 2022; Tuckey et al., 2022) rooted in adverse psychosocial working conditions (Balducci et al., 2021) – this is known as the work environment hypothesis (Skogstad et al., 2011). Strain-based mechanisms have been proposed to explain the link between work environment factors and bullying. Specifically, ineffective coping with stressor exposure is thought to lead to the development of strain and frustration, expressed towards others in a form of displaced aggression or through behavioural changes that provoke retaliation and mistreatment in response (Balducci et al., 2021). In addition, bullying can arise from escalated conflicts and be encouraged by destructive organisational climates and norms (Baillien et al., 2009).

Most commonly, managers are cited as alleged perpetrators (Hoel et al., 2001; Samnani & Singh, 2012), wherein bullying behaviour is primarily manifested through people management practices (Tuckey et al., 2022). The perspectives of managers themselves are, however, largely missing from the evidence base; an omission that neglects the multi-layered nature of organisations and constrains the possibility of understanding bullying from a systemic perspective (Neall & Tuckey, 2014).

By way of illustration, the study by Jenkins et al. (2012), in which 24 managers accused of bullying were interviewed, provides vital information about bullying from a systemic view. Participating managers described how their alleged bullying behaviour was a product of organisational factors, such as a stressful work environment, ambiguous job roles, and understaffing, and explained that it occurred when they addressed work conflicts, implemented unpopular working practices, and communicated shortfalls in departmental production. In addition, 66% of the managers indicated that they had also been bullied by subordinates, and 18% reported being targeted by bullying behaviour more than three times a week.

In line with the work environment hypothesis, the findings from Jenkins et al.’s (2012) study highlight that managers, as well as employees, can be exposed to bullying within dysfunctional work environments. This phenomenon, known as upwards bullying (Branch et al., 2007a), has been examined in only a handful of empirical studies, leaving large knowledge gaps to be explored. In particular, Busby et al.’s (2022) review highlighted the need to understand the shared and unique features of upwards bullying relative to other types, and to develop (or apply) theories that can guide the translation of upwards bullying research findings into practice. We directly address both of these gaps in our investigation into the antecedents of upwards bullying.

Building the evidence base regarding upwards bullying is vital for forming a comprehensive picture of workplace bullying (see also Branch et al., 2021), particularly for understanding how bullying arises as an organisational problem and can be tackled from a systemic perspective. Theoretically, upwards bullying of managers may represent a particular type of systemic disfunction that has different root causes and power dynamics relative to other forms of bullying, which in turn requires novel prevention and response strategies. Ethically, and often legally, organisations have a duty of care to protect all employees from mistreatment, including managers, by providing safe systems of work. Practically, the effects of upwards bullying are likely to spread beyond targeted managers to disrupt the effective coordination of personnel and resources in the pursuit of organisational objectives.

By illuminating the interplay of work environment factors that give rise to upwards bullying, our study aims to advance knowledge of upwards bullying antecedents specifically and fill gaps in knowledge under the work environment hypothesis of bullying more generally. We ground our research in Salin’s (2003) framework of enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors, which helps us to build new understandings of upwards bullying that can be extrapolated beyond the findings reported here. We draw on three data sources to identify enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors for upwards bullying: (1) interviews with former targets of upwards bullying; (2) interviews with subject matter experts who have dealt with cases of upwards bullying in practice; and (3) publicly available records of case decisions by a peak industrial relations body regarding complaints involving upwards bullying. Arising from our interviews, we also extend knowledge of the personal impact of upwards bullying on managers who experience this form of mistreatment.

Upwards bullying at work

The potential for managers to be bullied has long been acknowledged by researchers (e.g. Branch et al., 2007b; Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al., 2003; Salin, 2001), with as many as 75% of employees reportedly engaging in some form of upwards bullying behaviour (Wallace et al., 2010). Especially, direct supervisors appear to be more vulnerable to being bullied compared with middle and senior management (Hoel et al., 2001), which echoes the insights of Jenkins et al. (2012) highlighting supervision as a pinch point in the organisational system between employees and more senior managers. Yet upwards bullying of managers by subordinate staff has attracted little direct attention as a phenomenon (Branch et al., 2007b; Busby et al., 2022).

Given the central role of power in workplace mistreatment (Popovich & Warren, 2010), and its importance in workplace bullying beyond exposure to negative acts (Nielsen et al., 2022), it is puzzling that managers who hold formal power over others can be systematically bullied by them. Formal power is designed to operate hierarchically, flowing from the top of an organisation downwards and outwards, in ways that facilitate coordinated action towards organisational goals. On the other hand, regardless of their formal position, any person in a workplace who feels unable to defend themselves or escape the situation can be targeted by repeated negative acts (Einarsen, 2000). An interesting inquiry, then, relates to uncovering the dynamics involved when managers who hold formal organisational power are bullied by subordinate employees.

At the most basic level, holding a position of formal power does not necessarily mean that others will respect that power (Branch et al., 2007b). Though few, studies of upwards bullying suggest the conclusion that managers are vulnerable to upwards bullying when their position power is undermined by other organisational factors. Specifically, Patterson et al. (2018) noted that perceived or genuine loss of legitimate power is a foundational factor in upwards bullying. Two threats to legitimate power were present in the accounts of all six managers interviewed in their study: a lack of respect from subordinate staff, which led to the staff using bullying behaviours against the manager, coupled with a lack of support from senior managers during the bullying episode. The resulting loss of legitimising value permitted the bullying to escalate, further undermining the manager’s formal role, creating the perception of managerial incompetence, and fostering a feeling of powerlessness in the manager. Those findings extended earlier observations by Branch et al. (2007a) that a lack of support from senior managers during organisational change and a lack of respect from subordinate staff both undermine legitimate power in situations of upwards bullying. Though these themes were generated from interviews with a group of managers who had experienced bullying and a second group of managers who discussed the managerial work environment more generally, we believe they highlight a foundational ingredient involved in situations of upwards bullying. In a similar vein, Björklund et al.’s (2019) interviews with 22 bullied managers revealed that support for perpetrators from higher-level managers and/or bystanders contributed to undermining the bullied managers’ legitimate power, as did lack of managerial and staff role clarity. Though cases of upwards bullying were not isolated for analysis, these findings corroborate the importance of the behaviour of more senior managers in the upwards bullying process.

Studies in the upwards bullying literature have also started to document the types of power – other than formal power – that staff members harness to bully their managers. Branch et al. (2007a) noted the dependency that arises when managers need to rely on subordinate staff members who are critical to work unit functioning. Patterson et al. (2018) identified subordinates’ use of coercive power, expressed through tactics of avoidance and resistance, intimidation, and humiliation; and structural power, derived from connections to powerful others or through manipulating access to information and expertise.

Knowledge of the conditions that make upwards bullying more likely to occur is also emerging. Organisational change appears central among such factors (Björklund et al., 2019; Branch et al., 2007a) though findings are mixed regarding whether being a new manager is a change-related risk factor (Akan et al., 2013; Björklund et al., 2019; Branch et al., 2007a). Though currently lacking convergent evidence, Branch et al.’s (2007a) study suggested that a range of other work environment factors (e.g. work pressure, workgroup disharmony, generalised tolerance of inappropriate behaviour) may also be implicated in upwards bulling.

So far, empirical evidence points to an upwards bullying process wherein managers’ formal power is delegitimised as subordinates draw on a range of informal power bases to engage in bullying. Though it is clear that a range of contextual factors drive and support the upwards bullying process, the function of such factors – the role played by each and how they play together – is less clear. Against the backdrop of very limited data, more information is needed to develop a comprehensive account of upwards bullying as an organisational problem. Yet without a conceptual framework as a guide, it is difficult to meaningfully synthesise findings – existing and new.

Our goal in this study is, accordingly, to advance understanding of the antecedents of upwards bullying using a theory-driven approach. With the literature in a nascent stage, we believe it is useful to ground our research in a conceptual framework that can (a) integrate existing knowledge on upwards bullying in a meaningful way; (b) incorporate new findings as they are discovered; and (c) connect upwards bullying research with the wider workplace bullying literature. In turn, we anticipate that approaching knowledge development through such a framework will provide a more robust basis for mitigating upwards bullying as part of a holistic organisational approach to bullying prevention and response.

Enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors

Given growing evidence for the involvement of diverse organisational factors in upwards bullying, together with the more general framing of bullying as systemic problem, we anticipate that grounding our research in a framework of contextual antecedents will facilitate deeper insight into how upwards bullying develops and is sustained. Salin (2003) developed a framework for understanding how different contextual factors operate together, proposing that bullying can be understood “as the result of an interaction between … three groupings of explanators” (p. 1226), known as enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors. Salin argued that these factors do not give rise to bullying in isolation; rather the enabling conditions must be combined with rewards (motivating factors) and/or triggers (precipitating factors) for bullying to begin and persist. Said another way, bullying develops and is sustained when organisational factors make it possible in combination with when it is beneficial to bully others and/or when bullying is triggered. Even when there are reasons to bully others, or triggers for negative acts, the enabling conditions within an organisation will shape whether bullying can occur.

According to Salin’s (2003) model, enabling factors provide fertile soil in which bullying behaviour can sprout and grow. These necessary antecedents that make the environment conducive to bullying include real or perceived power imbalance, low costs of bullying, and dissatisfaction among workers. Of these factors, power imbalance has featured most notably in the small body of upwards bullying literature (Branch et al., 2007a, 2007b; Patterson et al., 2018), helping to explain when managers are vulnerable to being targeted by bullying behaviour. There have also been initial references in studies of upwards bullying to the other two types of enabling structures outlined by Salin (2003) (i.e. low costs and staff dissatisfaction; see Branch et al., 2007a). The opportunity remains to investigate more deeply factors that lower the threat of consequences for bullying and those that provide the underlying conditions from which negative acts towards managers tend to emerge.

Though enabling factors are necessary for bullying to occur, they are not sufficient. Even in an environment characterised by conditions that tend to foster harmful workplace behaviour, there needs to be an underlying motivation for the behaviour that supports its persistence and escalation over time. Within a conducive environment, motivating structures provide rewards to those who bully others and lead staff to engage in such behaviour. Salin (2003) proposed that internal competition and organisational reward systems can make it beneficial to bully others by generating pay-offs such as higher pay, performance-based promotions, or the ability to work around bureaucratic injunctions to push out non-conforming workers. Little is known about what motivates staff to bully managers though; that is, what value subordinates derive from the bullying. Our study intends to break new ground by uncovering some of the motivations underlying upwards bullying.

The third feature of the model is precipitating structures and processes, which act as the triggers of bullying. Salin (2003) proposed that such triggers primarily stem from changes in the status quo, such as organisational restructuring, downsizing, or changes in management or workgroup composition. The upwards bullying literature echoes this idea, having uncovered organisational change and the associated uncertainty and threat as playing a key role in some upwards bullying cases (Branch et al., 2007a), and changes in management in others (Björklund et al., 2019; Branch et al., 2007a). According to the model though, organisational change only results in bullying when the necessary foundational conditions are in place, together with some kind of benefit or reinforcement associated with acting out through bullying. Our study will directly explore the precipitating processes involved in upwards bullying to extend understanding beyond those factors uncovered so far.

Salin’s (2003) model is one of the few conceptual frameworks specific to the phenomenon of workplace bullying, acknowledging causes stemming from the intersection of diverse work environment factors. The model may be particularly useful for integrating knowledge of upwards bullying within the broader endeavour of tackling bullying as an organisational problem because it infers that any employee can engage in or be targeted by bullying in a fertile environment where bullying behaviour is reinforced and/or triggered by factors in the environment. The model has been applied and extended within the bullying literature (e.g. LaVan & Martin, 2008; Martin & LaVan, 2010; Motsei & Nkomo, 2016), with strong support for the central tenets of the theory (e.g. Hodgins et al., 2022). Building on Branch and colleagues (2007b) application of social exchange theory to explain how subordinates derive and utilise forms of personal power to bully workers in a position of authority, we use Salin’s (2003) bullying-specific model to guide our inquiry into the organisational structures that generate and distribute those forms of power.

The current study

Guided by Salin’s (2003) theoretical framework, the objective of our research is to explore the organisational factors that, in combination, manifest in upwards bullying. Our research question is: which factors, especially those from the organisational context: (a) enable upward bullying to take place; (b) motivate workers to bully supervisors and managers; and (c) trigger upward bullying behaviour? Uncovering the underlying organisational structures and processes that facilitate this type of bullying will allow researchers to develop a more holistic understanding of the complexity of workplace bullying and develop intervention strategies that are suitable for diverse bullying situations. Even if upwards bullying is grounded in similar theoretical mechanisms, it is likely that unique risk factors need to be considered given the different power dynamics involved.

In our study, we used a qualitative approach to obtain rich, in-depth information regarding the enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors of upwards bullying in the workplace. We gathered data through semi-structured interviews with Australian managers who had experienced upwards bullying; semi-structured interviews with subject matter experts within Australia who had worked as professionals involved in responding to cases of upwards bullying; and case decision records of alleged upwards bullying matters handled by the Fair Work Commission of Australia (FWC). We recruited managers and supervisors who had experienced upward bullying and asked them to provide their personal perspectives on contributing factors within their upwards bullying situation. Subject matter experts (i.e. psychologists, human resource professionals, and lawyers) provided observers’ accounts across multiple cases regarding the structures and processes within the organisational context that enabled, rewarded, and triggered upward bullying. Finally, the FWC case records provided an independent source of information from a real-life perspective to offer an additional form of data triangulation. Under the FWC legislation, an applicant can apply for an FWC order to stop the bullying behaviour of another worker or workers if the applicant believes they have been subjected to bullying behaviour at work.

Methodology

Data sources

Data for the current study were gathered from three different types of sources to triangulate insights into the phenomenon of upwards bullying and enhance the rigour and credibility of the research (see Tracy, 2010). The first source was interviews with individuals who identified as having been targeted by upwards bullying while in a managerial role (n = 11). The second data source was interviews with subject matter experts who had encountered situations of upwards bullying in their professional role (n = 5); three of these experts also contributed information as targets of upwards bulling. The third source of data was publicly available FWC decision records for cases allegedly involving upwards bullying (n = 2). The total number of separate data sources in the study was 18, of which 16 provided perspectives from targets of upwards bullying and 7 provided alternative perspectives.

Interview participants

Twenty-two individuals registered their interest in contributing to the research interviews, of whom 16 formally participated. Eight participants were female, and 10 were male, with a mean age of 43 years. Characteristics of the interview participants, including industry and role information, are summarised in Table 1. All participants reported being in roles that required subordinates to report to them at the time of being bullied. Five subject matter experts participated; three of these individuals had also experienced upward bullying during their careers and were interviewed about their experience as targets as well, with the data from the two different perspectives recognised separately in the analysis. These individuals were asked questions from the two question sets pertaining to the different types of exposure to upwards bullying. These perspectives were taken into consideration while analysing the data and are signalled in the quotations.

Table 1. Participant characteristics and occupational information.

Sources	Gender	SMX or Target	Industry	Role
I1	Female	SMX Target	Manufacturing Manufacturing	Human Resources Human Resources
I2	Female	Target	Specialised Nursing	Research Scientist
I3	Male	Target	Public Sector	Director
I4	Female	Target	Public Sector	Operations Manager
I5	Male	Target	Aviation	People Manager
I6	Male	SMX Target	Law Law	Barrister Lawyer
I7	Male	Target	Government	Regional Manager
I8	Female	Target	Retail	Regional Sales & Marketing Manager
I9	Female	Target	Nursing	Senior Nurse
I10	Male	Target	Fortune 500 Company	Psychologist
I11	Male	SMX	Organisational Psychology	Psychologist
I12	Female	Target	National Professional Services	Manager
I13	Male	Target	Hospitality	Second Chef
I14	Male	SMX	Corporate Business Relations	Chief Executive Officer
I15	Female	SMX Target	Organisational Psychology Organisational Psychology	Psychologist Psychologist
I16	Female	Target	Nursing	Nurse
FWC1	Female	Target	Service Delivery	Delivery Support Team Manager
FWC2	Male	Target	Stevedoring Services	Foreman

Note: SMX = Subject Matter Expert. Participant roles include formal managerial roles and other roles involving a supervisory function to which subordinate employees reported.

Interview materials and procedure

Semi-structured interviews were employed to explore participants’ experiences of upward bullying and their perceptions of the precipitating, enabling, and motivating factors. The semi-structured interview questions covered five topics, tailored to the viewpoint of targets of upward bullying or subject matter experts, while allowing for follow-up questions to extract nuanced information. The interviews covered: the individual’s experiences of upwards bullying; their role in the situation; perceptions of factors that allowed the bullying to take place; features that encouraged subordinates to engage in upwards bullying; and aspects that triggered the onset of the bullying behaviour.

Interviews were conducted by two of the authors (HS and MO) in the years 2016 and 2020. Ethics approval was provided by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the university at which the authors were based, in 2016 and updated in 2020 (protocol 35372). Participants were recruited through social media platforms (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook) and provided informed consent prior to active participation. Participants received an honorarium gift voucher for their time. Most interviews were conducted via telephone or teleconference, with an average interview duration of 45 min. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, at which point participants were deidentified and randomly assigned an identification number (as shown in Table 1).

FWC cases

The FWC is Australia’s independent national workplace relations tribunal, informed by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cwth), and is responsible for administering the provisions of the act (Fair Work Commission, 2022). The purpose of the FWC is to promote fair and productive workplace relations, by establishing employment standards, facilitating collective bargaining, and resolving employment-related disputes, including support to stop bullying. There are presently eight steps when seeking a resolution to workplace bullying, however, there are four steps that occur in a case: (1) lodgement; (2) allocation to a commission member; (3) mediation, conference, or hearing; and (4) decision. The FWC is headed by a president who is a judge/justice of the Federal Court of Australia, and the commission members are independent statutory office holders appointed by the Governor-General and can perform quasi-judicial functions under the Fair Work Act (Fair Work Commission, 2022).

To identify FWC cases related to upwards bullying, we searched publicly available FWC records in the anti-bullying jurisdiction. We reviewed case decision records wherein an Application for an order to stop bullying – s.798FC had been made to the FWC from February 2014 (the date of the first decision) up to (and including) August 2020 (the date at which data analysis commenced). Of the 111 published decisions in that timeframe, two were identified as relating to situations of upward bullying. Table 1 summarises the target characteristics in these two cases. The cases are descriptive, with court proceedings transcribed verbatim, providing an emotive transcript that allowed us to consider this data akin to the interview data. The elements of Salin’s (2003) model were sought through information provided in the entire transcript (i.e. from individuals’ claiming to be bullied, elements of judge’s decision), strengthening the rationale to analyse these cases in conjunction with the interview transcripts. Though the data are publicly available, out of respect for the targets these cases were also allocated a unique identification number in our analysis (see Table 1). In terms of outcomes, one case was dismissed by the judge; in the other case, the judge made a “stop bullying order” to prevent the applicant from being bullied. Case-related information available for analysis included an overview of the introduction and background to the case; a summary of the claims and evidence from the applicant and respondent/s (e.g. employer and alleged perpetrators); observations on witness and other evidence; consideration of whether the applicant had been bullied and was at risk of further bullying; other relevant matters; and conclusions and orders. The two case decisions included for analysis were comprised of 8268 and 36,274 words of text, respectively. Figure 1 overviews the search process and criteria for selecting case decisions for analysis.

Figure 1. Flow chart of search process and criteria for Fair Work Commission of Australia case decisions.

Epistemology

The aim of the study was to understand the antecedents of upwards bullying within Salin’s (2003) conceptual framework of enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors. This framework is relevant for exploring the factors that contribute to bullying from a systems view and provides a lens through which to interpret the data and extrapolate beyond the observed results, enhancing resonance of the findings (see Tracy, 2010). Using a constructionist approach (Given, 2008), we consider the findings in the context of lived examples by understanding the semantic and implicit meanings from the interviews and case records. Our research was initially deductive wherein we created codes and themes to represent antecedent factors organised into the three conceptual categories of Salin’s (2003) model. As the analysis progressed, we utilised an inductive approach to comprehend and ascribe meaning to the findings not just in the context of the model, but beyond it. This combination of deductive and inductive approaches is common in qualitive research using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021a; Byrne, 2022). A core component of qualitative research is to be sincere and reflexive (Braun & Clarke, 2021a; Tracy, 2010); as such, we considered and discussed our past experiences, biases, trust in the data, and how our involvement in the research process may have shaped the research questions, findings, and conclusions.

Analysis

Thematic analysis was used to analyse the corpus of the data collected, following the directions outlined by Braun and Clarke (2021b): (a) transcription; (b) reading and familiarisation; (c) coding across complete data set; (d) searching for themes; (e) reviewing identified themes through mapping; (f) defining and naming themes; and (g) finalising the analysis. This process was recursive and reflexive, often requiring the authors to review the steps several times. As codes and then themes were identified from the data, we categorised them according to Salin’s (2003) framework as enabling, motivating, or precipitating structures and processes. A second round of coding was conducted that confirmed initial coding consistency, and further identified any themes pertaining to the three factors or themes relevant to the phenomena of upward bullying at work. To establish the trustworthiness of the findings, one author (MO) analysed and coded the entire data set, with a second author (MT) independently reviewing the codes and themes and their categorisation into the framework. Where appropriate, revisions were made to the data structure based on discussions between the authors. The author team engaged in peer debriefing throughout the entire study to validate the insights and conclusions.

Results

In line with the aim of our study, we generated new insights regarding the work environment antecedents of upwards bullying in the workplace in terms of the enabling, motivating, and precipitating factors. Table 2 overviews the themes from our data related to these three dimensions of Salin’s (2003) model. Although not necessary in qualitative thematic analysis, we note the number of comments provided for each theme to aid in comprehending salience. While Morse (1995) stated that data saturation is vital for enhancing rigour, it is also often by the author’s declaration. To provide further transparency on how we obtained salience through saturation, we report the number of statements by participants. Finally, while not a direct line of investigation, we present findings regarding a prominent thread through the data relating to the personal impact of upward bullying on targeted managers, which had four primary themes. These themes are also listed in Table 2 and discussed in detail below.

Table 2. Overview of the thematic analysis results.

Themes	Instances	Sources
Enabling factors for upwards bullying
Lack of support from senior management	35	14
Structure and hierarchy failing managers	6	4
Bullying left unchallenged or unaddressed	22	9
Collegial support for the bullying	18	11
Motivating factors for upwards bullying
Benefits arising from bullying the manager	14	8
Navigating a competitive environment	23	11
Precipitating factors for upwards bullying
Changes in team leadership	19	10
Organisational restructuring	15	8
Personal impact of upwards bullying
Biopsychosocial impact	23	9
Sense making of bullying	15	7
Concern for reputation	6	6

Note: Instances and sources are provided to demonstrate transparency and the salience of data in conjunction with the rich descriptions provided in the discussion.

As shown in Table 2, enabling factors identified from the data included lack of support from senior management, lack of legitimacy for formal or informal power, the bullying going unchallenged or unaddressed, and collegial support for the bullying. The themes for motivating factors indicate that subordinates attain extrinsic or intrinsic benefits from bullying directed at their manager, and/or use upwards bullying behaviour to navigate the competitive work environment. Precipitating factors recognised in the data were changes in team leadership, including specific management actions as a new manager within a team, and organisational restructuring, including downsizing. Finally, managers discussed the personal impact of the bullying in terms of the biopsychosocial effects on their health and well-being, the drive to make sense of the bullying experience, and ongoing concerns about their professional reputation resulting from being bullied.

Enabling factors for upwards bullying

Lack of Support from Senior Management. Almost all interviewees (n = 14) reported an enabling factor of upward bullying in the workplace is lack of support for the bullied manager from more senior managers. The majority of the individuals who expressed this view had held middle management positions. Thirty-five comments comprised the evidence that this theme is a primary influence for the continued experience of middle managers being bullied by subordinates, acting as a delegitimising force. The lack of support took various forms, including the employer/senior management failing to take adequate action to prevent bullying, showing tolerance for bullying, believing the target to be unreasonable, wishing to avoid conflict, and failing to discuss the bullying with the target.

Being the target of ongoing malicious rumours in the workplace without receiving support from the employer. FWC1 (Target)

Overwhelmingly I think from what people have said to me and from what I’ve witnessed is that senior management doesn’t back middle management. I6 (Subject Matter Expert)

There was no discussion with my manager that this was happening. It all just happened, and this is what we’ve done. It was just so underhanded. I4 (Target)

Four targets reported in eight comments that the personal relationship between a subordinate and senior management allowed that subordinate to bully them. Two of the individuals reported that the bully was in a romantic relationship with the senior manager, and another two reported that the bully was close friends with someone in a more senior position.

Well, I think because her boyfriend was one of the senior managers and, yeah, so that’s what I think allowed that to take place, yeah for sure. I1 (Target)

If I had to say one thing, you know the first word when you asked me the question that, I thought of nepotism. She (bully) has a personal relationship with the big manager – he gives her a false sense of confidence as to what she can get away with. I3 (Target)

Structure and Hierarchy Failing Managers. Bullying requires a power gradient to be sustained, so it is unsurprising that power dynamics were highlighted in the data as another enabling factor in upwards bullying. Four sources in six comments shared that lack of a clear organisational hierarchy (i.e. uncertainty about formal position power) played a role in enabling the bullying behaviour, with one subject matter expert (I15) explicitly stating this. Confusion about the formal hierarchy, flexibility of rules, and formal structures all contributed to allowing the bullying behaviours to occur.

There’s a huge culture of bullying. The hierarchy, the seniority system doesn’t work. It really empowers people that shouldn’t have that level of power based on what they do. I5 (Target)

I think there is the organisational factors in the sense of roles and boundaries are not adequately reinforced. I15 (Subject Matter Expert)

In addition, six sources in six comments revelated that, despite the target holding a formal position of power, their management actions were not respected, enabling them to be bullied. Examples of this dynamic included when manager targets were younger than their subordinates, or when subordinates relied on informal networks that bypassed the manager. In both cases, formal power was delegitimised.

But a big problem is also in the legal profession you get a lot of mature age students or people jumping across. And a lot of older people, so they’d done something else for 10, 20 years, when they’re a junior lawyer they don’t like being told what to do by a senior lawyer who’s younger than them. I’m aware of that happening a few times. I6 (Subject Matter Expert)

Yeah, it wasn’t personal, it wasn’t personal … I think because they hadn’t seen me in a managerial role before, I wasn’t the go-to person and perhaps I didn’t have the experience that they were used to and they just didn’t see me as someone who would do that role, as in, who would help them, so they would just straight to the person above me. I16 (Target)

Bullying Left Unchallenged or Unaddressed. Nine sources shared through 22 comments that the bullying behaviour continued because it was left unchallenged or unaddressed. These responses reflect the idea that there was no or little cost to the bullies continuing with their unreasonable and aggressive behaviour towards targets; in other words, there was no deterrent. The individual perceptions of why the bullying was left unchallenged or unaddressed varied. Two subject matter experts identified the role of workplace culture wherein bullying is normative and condoned and staff become desensitised to such behaviour. Two of the targets indicated that they themselves tolerated the bullying behaviour and did not escalate it to senior management.

The constant failure by (organisation) to verify issues raised means that there has not been an appreciable change in attitude amongst the workforce. FWC2 (Target)

Well, I guess I think she felt untouchable (bully), and as I said, because her behaviour had never been, obviously, addressed appropriately at all. I1 (Target)

So, most bullying happens because more of poor culture and the workplace will very quickly will condone that behaviour and it will have a rippling effect to staff in lower-level positions to say, well, we tolerate this. I14 (Subject Matter Expert)

Collegial Support for the Bullying. Eleven sources in 18 comments indicated that collegial support of the subordinates facilitated the bullying behaviour towards their managers. In our data, this took the form of individual employees seeking support from colleagues to justify their bullying behaviour and in bullying from a cluster of employees – a “clique” (I6) – directed at the manager.

Yeah, each other. Each other encourages the behaviour and that’s the thing, as you know a lot with bullies, if they’ve got support, they are more brave [sic] – they are more confident in what they are doing – their poor behaviour. I1 (Subject Matter Expert)

Well, certainly the evidence given by one of the other managers, the manager of the [other] team was that he overheard two of them doing so. The behaviour of a third person seemed to align with also participating, but there was no evidence they did, but certainly two of those – there was independent evidence that they were conspiring. I7 (Target)

Four targets reported in four statements that general levels of dissatisfaction among subordinates enabled the bullying behaviour to take root. When subordinates were disgruntled with the work situation in general, this dissatisfaction grew into taking it out on the target.

Yeah, so if there is one unhappy person, they will often group with other unhappy people and then they will discuss the problems that they have had, but they never come in as a group, they always do it individually and the discussion will be amongst themselves, so you will see them grouping and they are obviously unhappy, and you know they are discussing things they are not happy about. I16 (Target)

Motivating factors for upwards workplace bullying

Benefits Arising from Bullying the Manager. According to Salin’s (2003) model, for bullying to be sustained there needs to be a pay-off that rewards or reinforces the bullying behaviour. Eight sources in 14 comments explicitly discussed this kind of motivating process for upwards bullying – that is, subordinates attracting extrinsic or intrinsic benefits as a result of the bullying behaviour towards their manager. Some subordinates who bullied their manager were rewarded with more favourable working conditions, such as being transferred to a personally favourable position or location. More commonly, for other subordinates, the bullying was reinforced by what happened to the target, such as being transferred or seen to be punished by more senior managers. Finally, subordinates resistant to change were rewarded for bullying their new manager when they were able to prevent changes from being enacted (which has a touchpoint with precipitating factors, discussed below).

In due course, NP [bully] was transferred to the other location and has since left employment with the employer. This transfer, although not intended as such, was seen by some of the DSOs who reported to the applicant [target] as a reward for NP. FWC1 (Target)

For example, I will go into a more current experience where I am the more senior nurse in an operating theatre, I am also a lot older by age and I am finding that the younger persons are refusing to do things that would be standard practice and if sort-of ask them to do something they will report me to management saying that I am making them work too hard. I9 (Target)

Navigating a Competitive Environment. The other theme for motivating factors was associated with the sense of internal competition, raised by 11 individuals in 23 comments. In particular, upwards bullying by subordinates was perceived to be motivated by competition for a particular position wherein upwards bullying was used as a strategy to undermine the person in that position. Moreover, missing out on promotion to a higher position was thought to motivate the subordinates to vent resentment towards the rival who received the promotion. Thus, our findings suggest that both the drive to win a competition and the resentment arising from losing a competition act as incentives for upward bullying.

Competition I suppose. Junior lawyers wanting to get into the position of senior associates that they see that they are in the way perhaps. That might encourage it. I6 (Subject Matter Expert)

It’s funny honestly because as I get older, you discover how many people are actually just trying to get one up on the other and that’s what it’s all about in business, you know trying to bet the competitor, trying to get that promotion, trying to get the more money, trying to get blah blah, which instils in people to ahh climb over the bodies they kill, to get to the next level. I8 (Target)

Precipitating factors for upwards bullying

Changes in Team Leadership. Ten sources in 19 comments reported how changes in team leadership and composition acted as a triggering factor for upwards bullying. Individually, many of the experiences appeared unique but our analysis identified changes in team leadership and the resulting group composition as a salient theme. Several targets reported that coming into a team as a new manager presented challenges; some subordinates clearly disliked having to take new direction, particularly in cases when they had also (unsuccessfully) applied for the team leader role. Some targets felt that the bullying was triggered by their own perceived lack of ambition or experience in a traditional, hierarchical ladder.

So, I was the HR manager in the manufacturing plant, and there was this girl that reported to me who had actually applied for the role that I took – so I had just come into the organisation. So, she had applied for the role that I won, and so she had to report to me. I1 (Target)

This was the culture under threat and how the culture perceived difference, and unfortunately, to some extent, I was just the unfortunate person to be the outsider – being not in the in-group to being in the out-group, and that unpacked a whole lot of dynamics. I7 (Target)

Within the broader theme of changes in team leadership, eight sources reported in 20 comments that specific actions taken as a new manager acted as a precipitating factor for the onset of bullying. A significant experience for targets in this theme relates to the requirement to manage the performance of team members, wherein targets described how initiating performance reviews and raising performance concerns with particular team members was met with bullying behaviour in return. Additionally, some sources reported other changes to people management practices contributed to triggering the bullying, such as revised allocations or rostering and requests for changes in information reporting.

I guess it started to get a bit worse when we started doing performance reviews, so she – this particular staff member was the first one – because I’d come into this department, so it was a department that I sort of came into that she had been working within for a while before I arrived. I2 (Target)

I think having to tell people what to do, and so if someone has been there six years, someone new telling you what to do, you’re going to be a bit upset about that, so I believe that that’s what was going on. Actually, I am sure, to be honest, that’s what was going on. I13 (Target)

Organisational Restructuring. Eight sources in 15 comments shared information suggesting that aspects of organisational restructuring contributed to triggering the upwards bullying. Specifically, when established working practices and processes were threatened, it resulted in bullying behaviour directed towards the manager. In some cases, sources reported that changes in workplace practices made in response to client or industry demands triggered the bullying; other sources stated that mergers, restructuring, and large-scale organisational repositioning led to the bullying behaviour. Even though these kinds of changes were not initiated by targets, the potential fear or resistance to change from the employees stimulated upward bullying behaviours.

I guess some of the commonalities of changes in structures … yeah, a common thing is definitely change. And change that may be necessary, but it has really threatened the established procedures. I11 (Subject Matter Expert)

They had, you know, we really needed to change our way of operating to be very client-focussed and our services needed to reflect what the client wanted. Some of the people that could not get on board with that really felt that they would be able to dictate what the clients – what is suitable [for the client] – whereas we were really going for a co-design collaborative approach, [but some] staff members believe that they knew better than the client. I3 (Target)

Organisational downsizing is a particular type of organisational restructuring. Across 11 comments, four sources shared how downsizing within their organisations triggered upward bullying behaviours. Like restructuring more broadly, downsizing was out of the target’s hands, related to economic or political factors, but nonetheless presented a threat to employees. The targets reported similar experiences outlining how the subordinates they managed were fearful, under pressure, feeling scrutinised, or having to remain in a state of constant re-education, which was seen as contributing to the upwards bullying. One subject matter expert who was also a target (I16) provided more detail on this kind of dynamic in organisations going through turmoil or looking like they are “going to fold” – when one person in a workgroup is promoted, the other employees fight the change and try to undermine or question the actions of the newly promoted employee. In this instance, I16 was promoted and then targeted by a demoted employee who came under their reporting line.

Well, ultimately, we got a person who used to be a vice president who was basically demoted and was scared to death of losing her job because that’s all she knew. And she got a lot of money doing it, and so anybody that would have any kind of issue at all on her team she would just ostracise, exile, and so we had – I had- two people on my team. I10 (Target)

There was palpable fear. I7 (Target)

Personal impact of upwards bullying

Although a lot is known about the consequences of workplace bullying broadly, there is limited evidence on the impacts of bullying for managers who are mistreated by their subordinates. We identified four themes in our data that can build knowledge in this area.

Biopsychosocial Impact. Nine sources in 23 comments described several experiences of biopsychosocial (physiological, psychological, and social) impacts of upward bullying. While some sources experienced diverse biopsychosocial impacts across all three domains, others reported effects in only one or two of these domains. The psychological impact was the most salient for targets in our sample; targets reported feeling highly emotional, including being angry, distressed, distrustful, depressed, drained, fearful, guilty, helpless, insecure, paranoid, stressed, suicidal, weary, and worthless. Two targets experienced a peak in bullying exposure over the Christmas and New Year period, which exacerbated their stress and caused heightened nervousness and cognitive rumination. Several sources shared their experience of mental preoccupation in the form of not being able to forget the bullying, the bullying bearing on their mind, anxious thoughts about what the bullies will do next, self-doubt and worthlessness, and daily intrusive thoughts about their bullying experience. Two targets stated they believe they have developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress as a result of their experience and acknowledged the need to continue therapeutic interventions to manage their distress. Critically, the severity of the effect of the bullying on one individual was so severe that they confided in the interview they had considered suicide.

This is the baggage we are carrying, you know, and that’s – we can’t forget. You know, we can’t forget. FWC2 (Target)

It’s hard to kind-of not have that almost butterfly-in-the-stomach feeling when you are going to bed at night and you are thinking about what’s happened during the day and then for those two weeks between that kind-of Christmas and New Year period, have that bear on your mind. I3 (Target)

Second, the physiological impact for some targets was significant, with descriptions including nervous tension and physiological arousal, sleep disturbance and nightmares, and hair loss. The impact on sleep was salient for several targets reporting the inability to sleep at the time of the bullying, and several also reported at the time of the interviews that they continue to experience ongoing nightmares and insomnia. One individual reported severe depression and shared they are on antidepressant medication to help manage the impact of the bullying.

Anyway, so over Christmas – and it was the most stressful time, I can’t tell you the stress that I under. My hair fell out. I can’t tell you; the impact was just massive. I hardly slept for months. I was absolutely beside myself. I4 (Target)

I was on antidepressants. I couldn’t sleep, so I was on sleeping pills. It really destroyed me. I5 (Target)

Third, the social impact reported by some targets pertained to how their experience and affect impacted their family. Two sources reported an inclination to wanting revenge on their bullies due to the injustice. One was unable to leave their house for a time and is still unable to visit the geographical location where the bullying was experienced to avoid the risk of encountering one of the bullies in public. Other actions taken by one individual was to block all their social media accounts in an attempt to recover from the experience.

I didn’t realise at the time the extent of the damage that was being done to my mental health and to the health of my family in terms of my role as a husband and father. I10 (Target)

It took me, for a while – like in my current office, it isn’t that far from them – for a while I wouldn’t even go out the front door because I was afraid one of them would be driving down the street which is a little embarrassing to say out loud now, but … I15 (Target)

Sense Making of Bullying. Seven targets described in 15 comments reflections on their struggle to make sense of their experience of being bullied. The targets used “I feel” statements in these comments and expressed a need for understanding why this happened to them. Several targets felt that what they experienced was “poor treatment, disappointing, soul destroying, unfair, and unreasonable.” Three targets reported attempts at trying to turn the experience into a positive learning experience or motivator to help them to move on from what happened to them. Despite one of these individuals attempting to turn the experience around for themselves, they admitted still feeling strongly about exposing the bullies and the firm as a form of punishment, to bring closure to their experience.

I do feel that was incredibly unfair and unreasonable, you know, condition for her to put myself or any colleague in, recognising that she herself was going through some significant personal changes and potential trauma. I didn’t understand her behaviour and I guess some of those factors may explain it, but it doesn’t excuse it. – I3 (Target)

I’ve spent so much time and that’s how I came across your research project, I’ve spent so much time trying to find answers to all my questions. – I5 (Target)

Concern for Reputation. Six sources in 11 comments reported that they felt their professional reputations were at risk because of this experience. One target (FWC2) stated “my career is stuffed” and four others indicated that their reputation had been tarnished or that they had suffered a lessening of their credibility as a subject matter expert or leader. Most of these individuals shared their concern and worry over what would happen to their reputation if the bullying escalated or came out publicly. One bully reportedly threatened to falsify information and accuse their target of sexual harassment (in response to the “#MeToo” movement); in this situation, the target said they were not concerned about their physical safety, but that their reputation and livelihood would be placed at risk.

And I would really worry about things like my reputation, you know, you become quite paranoid about it. I4 (Target)

Well, there’s the first thing, how is this supposedly confidential thing getting out? What’s this doing to my reputation? I7 (Target)

Resignation from Place of Employment. Six sources shared that they either resigned after being targeted, or gave subject matter expert advice to a target to resign, from the place of employment where the bullying was occurring. The reasons in this theme vary more than aforementioned themes; for example, two of the targets reported desperation and fear of what could happen as their rationale for resigning. Two could see no resolution and had lost hope in the firm they worked for, and one was essentially forced to resign by being put on “garden leave” where they were afforded the benefits of employment but were immediately placed on leave and excluded from the office (see Sutherland & Canwell, 2004) and had no choice but to seek new employment for lack of actual occupation. A subject matter expert (I6) suggested to targets of bullying that the best thing to do is “move out.”

I didn’t know what they would do, I didn’t know what allegations they’d make. I could be in a hotel staying overnight with one of these people and face an allegation the next day. So, I chose to resign from the job that I loved and the company that I loved. I5 (Target)

Well, that’s one of the five main reasons I have pulled out of running (department) because I thought, the day that I’m told that a sales rep can tell me how to run my operating theatre, it’s time to leave. I9 (Target)

Discussion

In this study, we applied Salin’s (2003) model of the enabling, motivating, and precipitating structures and processes underpinning bullying at work to generate new insights into the phenomenon of upwards bullying – situations in which managers are bullied by subordinate staff. We triangulated data from three different types of sources – interviews with targets, interviews with subject matter experts (some of whom were also targets), and case decisions from upwards bullying matters considered by the FWC – to better understand the combination of work environment factors that support the development and persistence of upwards bullying in organisations. We also uncovered new information about the impact of upwards bullying on targeted managers, and the challenges faced by managers who are bullied despite the formal power that they hold.

Theoretical contributions

Through the lens of Salin’s (2003) model, our research supports the conclusion that the genesis of upwards bullying involves a combination of organisational factors that together enable, motivate, and precipitate upwards bullying. As outlined by the model, we identified conditions that make upwards bullying possible within the work situation (enabling factors); pay-offs that make it beneficial for staff to bully their managers (motivating factors); and events that trigger the onset of upwards bullying (precipitating factors). In this broad sense, we demonstrated the utility of the model for understanding bullying in diverse forms by considering what, within the work and organisational context, makes the behaviour possible, how is it reinforced, and what triggers it.

First, in terms of enabling factors, we observed that certain foundational conditions create circumstances in which employees who hold less formal power can target their manager with negative acts on an ongoing and regular basis. By design, managers are in a more powerful position than staff arising from their place in the organisational hierarchy. Our findings support the conclusion proposed by Branch et al. (2007a) and Patterson et al. (2018) that managers are only able to be bullied by subordinate staff when their legitimate position power is undermined. Consistent with existing findings (Björklund et al., 2019; Branch et al., 2007a; Patterson et al., 2018), we saw that in upwards bullying a manager’s formal power is delegitimised through lack of support from more senior managers, a lack of clarity in the formal hierarchy, and lack of respect from subordinate staff. These factors shift the power gradients in ways that leave managers vulnerable to mistreatment. Although some power dynamics may be unique to upwards bullying (Branch et al., 2021), our findings reinforce the central and necessary role of power imbalance in the bullying process and highlight the common ground that links diverse forms of this phenomenon.

We also saw that collegial support, including a general feeling of dissatisfaction within the work group and more direct support and involvement, has an enabling effect for upwards bullying. Similarly, Björklund et al. (2019) emphasised the enabling role of bystander behaviour when managers are bullied and Branch et al. (2007a) identified workgroup disharmony as an important factor. In other words, it’s not only lack of senior management support that makes a manager vulnerable to mistreatment, the pattern of interpersonal relationships within the work group and wider organisation plays an important role in determining the balance of power and likelihood of bullying. This idea echoes findings from the workplace bullying literature more generally (e.g. Pauksztat & Salin, 2020), again highlighting fundamental similarities between upwards bullying and other forms. Further, our study suggests that upwards bullying – like bullying more broadly – is made possible by a lack of meaningful consequences for subordinates, wherein the bullying behaviour goes unaddressed. Likewise, Branch et al. (2007a) and Patterson et al. (2018) noted that bullied managers lacked the resources and capability to deal with inappropriate behaviour from their staff.

Second, a unique contribution of our research comes from findings regarding conditions within the work environment that function as incentives for upwards bullying. Said another way, our analysis supports the conclusion that the upwards bullying of managers by subordinates occurs when it is rewarded. Specifically, we observed that the motivations for upward bullying stem from two foundations – upwards bullying is reinforced when: (1) it brings about unfavourable outcomes for the target and/or favourable outcomes for the perpetrators; or (2) when it aids subordinates in navigating a competitive internal environment. These latter findings support and extend the suggestion of Hoel et al. (2001) that internal competition for promotion motivates bullying at the supervisory level in particular. Future research could explore these two generalised motivational underpinnings for upwards bullying in more depth, examining the combination of individual, organisational, and cultural factors involved and whether the motivations differ for managers at different levels and in different industries. Overall, our findings affirm the importance of understanding how negative acts are being reinforced within the system of work in order to put a stop to (upwards) bullying behaviour and mitigate its erosive effects.

Third, in terms of the precipitating factors, the central idea represented in our data is that upwards bullying is triggered by changes to the status quo, particularly by organisational restructuring and changes in team leadership. These kinds of triggers were originally recognised by Salin (2003) when proposing the model of bullying antecedents, and noted by both Branch et al. (2007a) and Björklund et al. (2019) as being involved in the (upwards) bullying of managers. They were also highlighted recently in a systematic review on antecedents linked with perpetrators using bullying behaviours against others (Özer & Escartín, 2023), highlighting their significance in the broader literature. Specifically, our data show that upwards bullying may represent a form of resistance geared towards protesting or preventing workplace changes, enabling negative emotions and perceptions of injustice to be channelled against a specific target in that process. In this sense, upwards bullying may be a way for employees to seek to restore balance or seek to retaliate within the exchange relationship with their employer. Employees may particularly target line supervisors who hold responsibilities for carrying out the organisational change strategy and, likewise, as a result of supervisors’ symbolic role representing the interests of the employer organisation.

In summary, our analysis of the enablers of upwards bullying strongly reinforce and extend existing findings regarding the factors that make it possible for managers to be bullied by subordinate staff, as do our findings regarding the triggers of bullying stemming from different types of organisational change. In addition, we provide new evidence regarding how upwards bullying behaviour is reinforced. Overall, our study advances knowledge by considering these factors from a functional perspective that more clearly maps out their role in the (upwards) bullying process, drawing on Salin’s (2003) bullying-specific conceptual model. From this lens, upwards bullying can be viewed as a logical adaptation to stressful or ineffective work environments – those characterised by disrespect and disharmony, unclear formal hierarchy, and lack of alignment between leaders at multiple levels – that is likely to continue so long as it goes unaddressed and is supported or reinforced. In this way, upwards bullying may feel to the perpetrators like an adaptive response to chronic problems, change, or uncertainty, with the ultimate payoff being the potential to stop unwanted changes, gain a more advantaged position in the uncertain and competitive environment, or punish the agent who represents the face of organisational problems. From a holistic view, upwards bullying – like other forms – can thus be seen as a manifestation of deeper organisational challenges.

Finally, our analysis also generated knowledge of the personal impact of bullying on targeted managers. The impacts described by the targets in our sample were holistic to their individual experiencing the bullying, affecting more than their job, and extending to their personal health, wealth, safety, and sense of self. Our study suggests that being exposed to bullying as a manager is a challenging experience to make sense of and move on from. In particular, accepting that formal positional power has been delegitimised is inherently distressing for managers. This finding echoes observations by Branch et al. (2007a) that managers who have personally experienced upwards bullying struggle to make sense of why it happened and question their own capabilities as a manager (but this was not the case for those reflecting on the managerial environment more generally). Our findings also indicate that managers who have been manoeuvred into a position of inferior power don’t know how to restore the balance. They fear that their professional reputation will be permanently damaged and are not sure if they can credibly hold a position of formal power again. Taking these findings together, it appears that the personal experience of upwards bullying challenges implicit understandings held by targets about the managerial role and their professional competency in that role. This interpretation is grounded in the shattered assumptions theory of trauma (Janoff-Bulman, 1989, 1992) and consistent with studies in the wider workplace bullying literature which suggest that the experience of victimisation changes how people think about themselves and the world (e.g. Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Rodríguez-Muñoz et al., 2010). Like other targets in working environments conducive to bullying who lack the signal that meaningful change is possible (e.g. Kwan et al., 2016), our findings indicate that managers targeted by upwards bullying may see the only conceivable solution is to leave the organisation. Similarly, this was one of the coping strategies reported by managers in the study by Björklund et al. (2019). Considering our conclusion that upwards bullying is a reflection of deeply embedded issues, leaving the organisation may, in the end, be the safest strategy for targets. Overall, the effects of upwards bullying for managers share similarities with the experience of being a target of bullying more broadly, albeit shaped by the unique power dynamics involved, and highlight the potential for long-lasting detrimental effects when assumptions about the self and the world are challenged by the experience of being victimised.

Practical implications

Our findings document the range of harms experienced by targets of upwards bullying, akin to other kinds of workplace mistreatment, and emphasise the need for prevention and response mechanisms that protect against those harms. First, building on a nascent body of literature, our findings suggest an opportunity to expand lay understandings of workplace bullying to more readily recognise situations wherein managers are mistreated by subordinate staff as a form of bullying at work. Without shifting the mindset, upwards bullying may remain a largely invisible form of workplace mistreatment because it counters the perception that power within organisations flows solely downwards along formal hierarchical lines.

Second, like workplace bullying more broadly, our findings regarding the genesis of upwards bullying indicate that it should be understood as an organisational problem that requires organisational solutions which address the combination of factors that make bullying possible, reinforce such behaviour, and trigger it. Of note, conditions within an organisation that undermine a manager’s formal position power render that manager vulnerable to being bullied by their staff. Middle managers, especially those new to their role, need to be visibly backed by senior staff to legitimise their managerial role. Further, any manager who raises the issue of bullying behaviour from subordinate staff should be taken seriously; it is not easy for managers to change a situation wherein they have been manoeuvred into a position of weaker power. Unfortunately, however, in the kinds of work environments that enable upwards bullying, targeted managers may not be able to find appropriate avenues of support.

Finally, when upwards bullying emerges, it should be understood as a manifestation of deeper organisational issues that may lack feasible and effective solutions. This is especially relevant when embarking on organisational change, which plays a triggering role in upwards bullying as well as workplace bullying more broadly. When planning organisational change, it would be worthwhile to consider mechanisms that enhance widespread meaningful participation to not only improve change outcomes, but also to smooth the change process. As informed by our findings, meaningful participation may increase perceptions of fairness in the exchange relationship between employees and their employer throughout the change period, and thereby prevent managers (and others) form being targeted with negative acts as a form of redress, an expression of strain, or as a way of seeking stability and control. New managers taking on supervisory roles in pockets of disharmony need particular support so that chronic concerns can be understood and handled without tiggering backlash.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

We incorporated several features into our qualitative research design to enhance the rigour, credibility, resonance, ethical integrity, and coherence of our study (see Tracy, 2010). These included triangulation across multiple data sources from different perspectives and contexts, grounding the research in a conceptual model with rich theoretical constructs, carrying out the research with reflexivity and transparency, triangulating analysis and interpretation across researchers within the team, and using methods appropriate to our aims. Together these strengths enhance the theoretical and practical contributions of our research.

There are also several limitations of our study to consider, in terms of how they affect conclusions based on our findings. We adopted Salin’s (2003) conceptual framework to identify, organise, describe, and report the themes in our data. Though this choice was based on a strong rationale, applying the framework to guide our analysis excluded more emergent ways of forming themes that may have produced a different account of the data and different interpretations of the phenomenon of upwards bullying. Further, our analysis did not explore relationships between the three categories of the model (i.e. between the enablers, motivators, and precipitators) or between the themes within each category, thereby overlooking some of the complexities of the antecedent conditions. Both issues would benefit from further inquiry to enrich the picture of how upwards bullying develops, is sustained, and can be prevented. Similarly, echoing the call from Branch et al. (2021), taking a more nuanced look at how these and other factors are involved in the escalation of upwards bullying could yield additional insights for early intervention.

Thematic analysis is dependent on the judgements of the researchers involved in the coding, meaning that different researchers may generate different themes. In our study, we handled this issue through regular discussion between two authors, and debriefing with the whole research team, to review the themes within each category in the model and their grounding in the data. Another factor worth considering is how recruitment for interviews via social media and networks may have affected our findings. In this study, we asked participants (via social media platform networks) to volunteer to take part in the interview if they had experienced upwards bullying or handled cases of upwards bullying in their professional work. Thus, the selection criteria required participants to self-identify their status as a target or subject matter expert of upwards bullying. Some managers may be unwilling or unable to conceive of themselves as being a target, and participants may incorrectly opt into or out of the study without being provided with an explicit definition of bullying at recruitment. We addressed this latter constraint by verifying participants’ experience of upwards bullying early in the interview (to ensure it aligned with our utilised definition of bullying), and through the triangulation of subjective (interviews) and case (FWC) data around bullying experiences.

Finally, it would be beneficial in future research to collect a larger corpus of data to enhance the richness with which each theme can be described and enable deeper exploration into how the themes and categories are connected. In particular, we made a unique contribution in highlighting the role of motivating factors for upwards bullying through we only had sufficient data to generate two broadthemes. This avenue is worthy of further explanation to ensure that the antecedent conditions of this form of mistreatment are understood in a comprehensive way. Having established foundational knowledge of how the enablers, motivators, and precipitation function in upwards bullying, it will be important to explore the nuances involved in upwards bullying of managers at different organisational levels, holding positions relying primarily on indirect influence, and in different sectors – all of which might shape the dynamics involved. Relatedly, there were only two cases of upwards bullying available in the decision records at the time of commencing the analysis. As this number increases, the potential to learn from the cases will also expand.

Conclusion

Though on the surface it may seem puzzling, the potential for managers to be bullied by subordinate staff despite holding greater formal power has long been recognised. We investigated this phenomenon, known as upwards bullying, to better understand the organisational conditions underlying this form of mistreatment. Our findings support the conclusion that three sets of factors come together as organisational antecedents for upwards bullying, establishing the foundational conditions that make it possible for upwards bullying to take place by delegitimising a manager’s formal power and decreasing the costs for perpetrators; making it beneficial for staff to bully managers, by providing them with desirable outcomes or leading to undesirable outcomes for the target; and triggering negative acts directed at managers, primarily in response to organisational change. Moreover, through a systemic lens, upwards bullying may function as a logical adaptation to stressful or ineffective work environments. Our findings suggest that awareness of workplace bullying needs to be expanded to recognise bullying of this nature and, likewise, that prevention efforts must address the unique and shared risk factors for upwards bullying uncovered to prevent the associated harms. In this way, bullying can be understood and addressed more holistically as an organisational problem.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability

The qualitative data for this manuscript is available from the lead author by request.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.