Accused of workplace bullying? What a manager should do

“I was only holding people accountable”

A manager begins a formal performance review. Days later, an employee files a bullying complaint. The timing can make the accusation feel like an attempt to derail a legitimate process. One British manager described receiving a complaint on the very day she started formal performance management. Interviews with 24 managers accused of workplace bullying found that many understood their actions as ordinary, justified management; some saw themselves as the person being mistreated (Jenkins et al., 2012). Similar stories surface on Polish employment forums: a supervisor issues a warning and is then accused of harassment. Responses often urge caution about dismissing the employee or declaring the complaint fabricated merely because it has not been proven internally. Both sides of the story deserve examination. A complaint might follow an unwelcome performance review, yet the review itself might have been delivered in a humiliating way. Your job in the first few days is not to win the argument with the complainant. It is to establish what happened, protect the process and avoid making the situation worse. A fair investigation can examine both the legitimate business reasons for a decision and the way it was communicated.

Unsubstantiated does not mean deliberately false

Official figures show why it is dangerous to treat the outcome of an investigation as a verdict on someone's honesty. Poland's labour inspectorate, the PIP, received more than 2,600 complaints alleging workplace bullying in 2025. Around 5% were found justified, 23% unfounded and roughly 72% could not be verified (PIP, 2026). Those categories describe what inspectors could establish; they do not tell us how many people knowingly invented an allegation. South Korean administrative figures provide another illustration: of nearly 43,000 concluded workplace-harassment cases, roughly three in ten were withdrawn, a similar share ended without a finding of a violation, and 1.4% resulted in fines. These outcomes should not be confused with proof of bad faith. Nor is it easy for people to recognise their own behaviour as bullying. In a Norwegian study involving more than 2,000 employees, 5.4% acknowledged bullying others, while 8.3% identified themselves as targets (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2007). Under Polish law, knowingly making a false accusation raises different issues from submitting a complaint that cannot be substantiated. The distinction is crucial to any hope of restoring working relationships: “We could not establish it” is a very different message from “You lied.”

What to do in the first few days

First, acknowledge that the complaint exists and ask HR, the designated investigator or an independent adviser how the procedure works. Do not confront the complainant, canvas colleagues for support or discuss the details with the team. Preserve relevant records such as emails, meeting notes, objectives, performance reviews and decisions, then write a dated chronology while your memory is fresh. Do not edit records or ask others to align their accounts. Seek advice and personal support for yourself too. The UK's Acas guidance says that suspension, where genuinely necessary in a disciplinary matter, should normally be on pay, kept as short as possible, reviewed and explicitly treated as a neutral step rather than a punishment (Acas Code of Practice). Be especially careful about anything that could look like retaliation: a sudden negative appraisal, an unjustified change of duties, pressure to withdraw the complaint or hostility towards witnesses. Research on mistreatment at work found that speaking up could be followed by professional and social retaliation, especially where there was a power imbalance (Cortina and Magley, 2003). In Poland, rules effective from 5 November 2026 protect people exercising employment-law rights and those supporting them; remedies for retaliation depend on the claim and are not interchangeable (Polish Labour Inspectorate, 2026). Belgian rules likewise provide specific protection and, where its conditions apply, a choice between proven damage and a fixed sum of six months' gross pay. If the complaint arrives while a performance process is underway, Acas allows the two matters to be considered together or the disciplinary process to be paused. If the complaint directly concerns your appraisal, having someone else conduct it may be the fairest course. Record the reason for that decision.

The accused manager's rights depend on the country

There is no single international set of rules for investigating a workplace-bullying allegation. In Poland, the Labour Code sets out employers' duties to prevent and address bullying but leaves much of the internal investigative procedure to workplace rules. The law also states that justified performance management, expressed appropriately, does not in itself constitute mobbing, while a perpetrator's intention is not decisive. The Acas Code in Great Britain provides safeguards at the formal disciplinary stage: the employee should be told the allegations in writing, normally receive relevant written evidence, have an opportunity to respond and call witnesses, be accompanied at qualifying hearings, and be able to appeal to someone not previously involved (Acas Code of Practice). These are procedural safeguards, not an automatic entitlement to every document at the first investigative interview. In Germany, an employer contemplating dismissal solely on suspicion must normally give the employee a chance to be heard. In France, an internal investigation report may be admitted as evidence even if the accused was not interviewed. Italian case law distinguishes mobbing, which turns on a pattern of persecution, from other harmful management conduct that may still be unlawful. Chilean legislation requires the parties to be heard. The safest practical request in any country is modest and clear: ask in writing for the allegations, the procedure and a fair chance to provide your account and identify relevant witnesses. Obtain local legal advice when disciplinary or dismissal risks are serious.

The same behaviour can be experienced differently

Bullying allegations often concern the tone and setting of a message, not just the words used. A supervisor might see a forceful intervention as efficiency; a colleague might experience it as repeated public humiliation. Disputing the other person's feelings rarely resolves that difference. Experimental research found that people judged the same harmful outcome more severely when they believed it was intentional (Ames and Fiske, 2013). Differences in communication style also complicate judgments. In one study, neurotypical observers formed more negative impressions of autistic people from brief video clips than from transcripts of the same speech, suggesting that non-verbal presentation can influence perceptions independently of content (Sasson et al., 2017). That does not excuse repeated mistreatment or mean that all autistic colleagues communicate alike. Gender expectations can also shape reactions. A meta-analysis found that women displaying overt dominance were more likely than men to face social and hiring penalties, despite comparable assessments of competence (Williams and Tiedens, 2016). None of this makes a complaint merely a matter of sensitivity. It means investigators and managers should describe observable behaviour: who spoke, what was said, whether it happened publicly, how often it recurred and what happened afterwards. Labels such as “aggressive”, “too sensitive” or “difficult” are far less useful than evidence.

How to respond and rebuild trust

Where appropriate, you can acknowledge the impact or tone of your behaviour without prematurely admitting that a disputed legal allegation is true. Research on forgiveness links apologies with a greater willingness to repair relationships (Fehr et al., 2010). An analysis of almost 4,000 Dutch court decisions found that apologies rarely harmed the apologising party's legal position, but that finding cannot be applied as a guarantee in every jurisdiction (Wijntjens, 2022). During a live investigation, take local legal advice before sending a formal written apology. Request the allegations and an opportunity to respond; keep legal representation separate from emotional support. An exploratory study found that being accused of workplace bullying can be associated with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms, regardless of the eventual outcome (Jenkins et al., 2011). If the complaint is not substantiated, agree a practical return-to-work plan with HR: communicate the outcome without branding anyone a liar, make non-retaliation explicit, offer voluntary facilitated discussion about future working rules, and review the situation after one and three months. If your management style needs work, define a specific goal rather than promising to “be nicer”. In one intervention, four two-hour training sessions for supervisors were followed by fewer reports of abusive supervision nine months later (González-Morales et al., 2018). Consider legal action against a complainant only after specialist advice; an unsuccessful complaint is not, by itself, proof of defamation. Small organisations without an independent HR function may need an external investigator to avoid conflicts of interest.

Related reading: How to tell workplace conflict from bullying; Giving tough feedback without demotivating an employee.

After a bullying allegation, the priorities are calm, sound records and an impartial process. An unsubstantiated complaint is not proof that someone acted in bad faith. The manager should cooperate with the review and maintain professional communication throughout. Once the facts are established, the experience may also provide a starting point for improving leadership habits.

Empatyzer: everyday team communication after a complaint

Imagine a team leader who has to run tomorrow's briefing but has just learned that someone has complained about their management style. They could ask Em: “I still need to agree next week's targets. How can I be clear and calm when I'm upset myself?” Em can help draft a short agenda, separate operational decisions from emotion and find neutral language for instructions. The leader can also explore their leadership profile to see whether their usual pace, directness or need for control calls for extra care in conversations. That preparation supports steady management during a difficult period and can inform more lasting changes once the review is complete.