Personality and Workplace Bullying: Why Feedback Feels Different

One conversation, different interpretations

Imagine a message in a team chat: “This needs fixing by tomorrow.” One colleague replies “OK” and gets on with the job. Another spends the evening rehearsing a defence. Is that difference simply down to individual sensitivity? Researchers have tested how personal characteristics shape our reactions. In an experiment with 756 participants who watched the same recorded exchange between a supervisor and an employee, people were more likely to regard the behaviour as offensive if they tended to attribute hostile intentions to others. Greater negative emotionality, anger and a sense of entitlement were also associated with harsher judgments (Brees et al., 2016). A field study similarly linked a tendency to assume hostile motives with stronger perceptions of abusive supervision (Martinko et al., 2011). These findings do not mean the behaviour was harmless. As a review of abusive-supervision research points out, many studies cannot fully separate the observer's interpretation from what the supervisor actually did (Fischer et al., 2021). The listener's perspective is part of the story, not the whole story.

How much can personality really explain?

A meta-analysis of 36 samples covering nearly 14,000 people found a correlation of r = 0.25 between reported workplace bullying and neuroticism. The corresponding correlations were r = −0.17 for agreeableness and r = −0.10 for both extraversion and conscientiousness (Nielsen et al., 2017). The relationships are measurable, but hardly decisive: neuroticism accounts statistically for around 6% of the variation. More importantly, the direction of influence is not one-way. In a Swiss panel study following 2,469 people over four years, experiences of bullying were linked to rising neuroticism and falling extraversion; changes in bullying exposure were also associated with lower conscientiousness (Farley et al., 2026). When someone says, “I no longer feel like myself,” prolonged mistreatment may be part of the explanation. Conscientiousness is particularly revealing: cross-sectional studies have tended to associate it with less bullying, while longitudinal findings have also linked higher conscientiousness to later exposure (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015). Bullying may erode conscientiousness; it is also possible, though not established, that people with demanding standards are drawn into more disagreements about quality. Correlation cannot settle which explanation is right.

The manager's personality matters too

Discussions of workplace bullying often focus on the target's reactions and overlook the person delivering the message. In a study of 107 supervisor–employee pairs, managers scoring lower on honesty–humility were more likely to be seen as abusive by their direct reports (Breevaart & de Vries, 2017). Another study found that highly conscientious supervisors were more likely to be perceived as abusive, consistent with the risks of excessive checking and perfectionistic demands (Camps et al., 2016). Managers who saw a subordinate as fundamentally unlike themselves also experienced more conflict with that person and behaved more abusively towards them (Tepper et al., 2011). A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis linked the so-called Dark Triad traits, psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism, with perpetrating workplace bullying. Results varied substantially between studies, so these associations should not be used to label individuals (Sui et al., 2026). A sense of entitlement complicates both sides: it may heighten perceptions of mistreatment and contribute to mistreating others (Harvey & Harris, 2010). Research that measures the personalities of both people in the same relationship remains limited. That is a major gap in what we know.

Temperament, sensitivity and what people need

Temperament is another piece of the puzzle. In a Polish study of 406 workers, experiences of bullying were associated with emotional reactivity (r = 0.16), sensory sensitivity and endurance (Gamian-Wilk & Bjørkelo, 2019). These were small associations, but they help explain why a similar situation may take a different emotional toll. There is also growing interest in high sensory-processing sensitivity, often described as being a highly sensitive person (HSP). Research suggests that people high in this trait respond more strongly both to workplace demands and to supportive conditions (Vander Elst et al., 2019). Yet high sensitivity overlaps considerably with neuroticism, and this study did not establish that highly sensitive employees are more likely to be bullied. Motivation matters as well. Workplace bullying can undermine the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and connection with others (Trépanier et al., 2015). Before delivering difficult feedback, consider which need it may threaten: independence, professional credibility or a sense of belonging. Reframing a situation can sometimes soften the effects of aggression from managers or colleagues (Niven et al., 2013). Under persistent bullying, however, personal coping strategies may no longer provide the same protection (Hewett et al., 2018). Organisations have to tackle the conduct itself.

Communication style is not a personality diagnosis

Arguments about “tone” often turn on how a message is delivered rather than what the words say. In one study, autistic people received less favourable first impressions when observers watched brief recordings than when they read transcripts of the same communication (Sasson et al., 2017). A preregistered study of information transfer between autistic and non-autistic people, meanwhile, did not find the predicted reduction in information accuracy in mixed-neurotype groups. Rapport was lower, but improved when participants knew each other's diagnosis (Crompton et al., 2025). The lesson is not to guess a colleague's neurotype or assume that different means defective. Personality labels call for similar caution. Bullying research generally measures traits along dimensions; it does not establish which personality “type” is destined to become a target. The MBTI has disputed psychometric foundations (Pittenger, 2005), and vague personality descriptions often seem personally accurate because of the Barnum effect (Forer, 1949). Crucially, these findings do not make the person experiencing bullying responsible for it. In one study, 64% of bullying targets had personality profiles indistinguishable from those of other workers (Glasø et al., 2007). Exposure also tends to fall after changing jobs, highlighting the importance of the environment (Rosander et al., 2022). Personal attacks and humiliation are widely recognised as bullying-related behaviours regardless of who receives them (Salin et al., 2019).

What to do before the next difficult conversation

Before writing someone off as oversensitive, ask: “What did you take from what I said?” Asking directly can reveal another person's perspective more accurately than trying to imagine it from your own point of view (Eyal et al., 2018). Give feedback about the work, not the person's worth, and avoid public criticism. Managers should examine their own habits too. High standards, a strong need for control or a lack of humility may make their communication feel hostile; regular, genuinely safe feedback from the team can help expose that pattern. For everyday misunderstandings, it helps to consider an alternative interpretation and to ask how a colleague prefers to receive feedback. Persistent mistreatment is different: stopping it is the organisation's responsibility, not a test of the employee's resilience. When investigating a complaint, focus on what was said and done, the circumstances and the evidence. Personality tests and type labels must not substitute for establishing the facts.

Related reading: Temperament and what team leaders should know and How the Barnum effect can mislead personality assessments.

Personality and communication styles can shape how a difficult exchange is understood, but they cannot by themselves establish whether bullying occurred. Separate the words and actions from the intentions attributed to them, then check how each person understands the expectations. Adjusting how feedback is delivered may help more than debating who is too sensitive.

Related topic: How to distinguish workplace conflict from bullying.

Empatyzer: when conversations are easy to misunderstand

A manager sends a colleague a terse “Fix this by tomorrow” and is surprised when it causes tension. Empatyzer may reveal a difference in communication preferences: one person sees brevity as efficiency; the other needs context and a clear reason for the request. Em could suggest: “The figures are missing two data points we need for Friday's meeting. Could you add them by tomorrow? If that's difficult, let's agree priorities.” Because the guidance reflects the people involved, there is no need to use the same approach with everyone. Small adjustments like these can build understanding, especially when emotions, authority and trust are at stake.