Is it workplace bullying? How to recognise the warning signs

“Am I just being too sensitive?”

For months, a manager has been criticising one employee in front of the team: “Not again” and “How many times do I have to tell you?” That employee is increasingly left off emails containing key decisions, while tasks arrive with impossible deadlines. Instead of asking what is going on at work, she starts by questioning herself: am I being too sensitive? It is a familiar reaction. Searches such as “is this workplace bullying?” turn up self-assessment quizzes, and the English-language question “is my boss a bully or am I sensitive?” captures the dilemma particularly well. People often want help understanding their own experience before they want a formal definition. Online discussions can make this harder: “too sensitive” is frequently used to dismiss someone else's story. The doubt is understandable. What the research shows, however, is more complicated than the idea that employees routinely exaggerate.

Bullying is often underreported, not exaggerated

The answer depends partly on how researchers ask the question. In a meta-analysis of different studies, 18.1% of respondents reported bullying when no definition was supplied, compared with 11.3% when researchers provided one (Nielsen et al., 2010). Without a definition, the term can cover a wider range of experiences. But when researchers ask the same people about specific negative behaviours and, separately, whether they identify as victims, another pattern emerges. In a study of 403 US workers, 28% met the behavioural criteria for repeated mistreatment, yet only about one-third of those people described themselves as bullied (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Studies in Denmark, Norway and Sweden also found gaps between exposure and self-identification (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2022; Rosander et al., 2020). The gap was especially striking online: in a Swedish study, 9.7% met the study's criteria for cyberbullying, but just 0.7% identified themselves as victims (Forssell, 2016). Gender also made a difference in one Swedish sample: women were more likely to identify as victims, while men more often met the behavioural criteria. A Polish survey by CBOS in 2024 found higher self-reported bullying among younger adults; it cannot tell us whether they experienced more mistreatment or were more willing to name it.

Why people stay silent

Silence may reflect a calculated risk. In a study involving 1,167 workers, people who challenged mistreatment often faced professional or social retaliation; those who experienced retaliation reported poorer health (Cortina and Magley, 2003). Research on sexual harassment found that employers' responses, particularly minimising complaints and retaliating, were important to subsequent harm (Bergman et al., 2002). Shame can linger long after the behaviour stops (Lewis, 2004). People can also become accustomed to treatment that would once have shocked them. In a Polish study, greater exposure to bullying-related behaviour was associated with greater acceptance of it (Durniat, 2022). Many employees also describe a fear of being labelled “difficult”, although that particular fear has not been quantified directly in the studies cited here. In the 2024 CBOS survey, 68% of affected respondents in Poland said they had told nobody. Witnesses complicate the picture further. In one study, estimates of victimisation ranged from 3.9% to 39.6%, depending on whether people identified themselves or their peers nominated them (Coyne et al., 2003). Different viewpoints do not, by themselves, prove that anyone is being dishonest.

Feelings matter, but legal tests also examine the facts

Psychological research and employment law do not always use the word bullying in exactly the same way. Questionnaires may ask whether a person feels exposed to bullying; legal assessments commonly look at the conduct through an objective or reasonableness-based test, although requirements differ by jurisdiction. In Poland, the Supreme Court has applied a “reasonable victim” standard that does not treat either unusual sensitivity or unusual resilience as decisive (Supreme Court, III PK 2/09). Since 5 November 2026, Polish law also calls for an individualised assessment that takes the employee's circumstances into account, such as health or caring responsibilities. Ireland's code asks whether repeated conduct could reasonably undermine dignity at work; a single incident does not count as bullying under that code (S.I. 674/2020). In Britain, Acas guidance says that bullying can also be a one-off event and need not be intentional (Acas). US hostile-work-environment claims, in their relevant legal context, involve both subjective and objective elements. German and Austrian approaches generally emphasise a systematic pattern, while French law does not require proof that the perpetrator intended harm. Italian case law places greater weight on a persecutory purpose. Belgium separately recognises a single violent act as workplace violence; Czech law lacks a single statutory definition of workplace bullying, and Chilean law can cover an isolated act. Danish guidance gives particular weight to how the person concerned experiences the conduct. These are distinct legal frameworks, not interchangeable definitions. The practical point is that how something feels can prompt a concern, but the evidence and applicable law determine how it is assessed.

Harm does not depend on calling it bullying

Waiting until you have found the perfect label can delay getting help. In a study of more than a thousand employees, people exposed to severe mistreatment reported health problems whether or not they identified themselves as bullied (Vie et al., 2011). A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found an association between bullying and later mental-health difficulties (r = 0.21). The association also ran the other way: poorer mental health predicted later reports of bullying (r = 0.18) (Verkuil et al., 2015). That does not mean the mistreatment was imagined. An analysis of data from more than 13,000 people, controlling for stable individual characteristics, found that anxiety rose when bullying began (Holmgren et al., 2023). Poorer health may make a difficult situation harder to manage; it does not excuse what other people have done. A sentence such as “On Monday, in front of the team, she said…” gives someone reviewing the case more to work with than the label alone.

What to do: five questions and a written record

Instead of relying on an online quiz, ask yourself five questions. First: is this repeated, for example every week over several months? Second: is it hard to defend yourself because the other person has more power or influence? Third: is the criticism about the work, or about you as a person? “The figures in this report are wrong” is different from ridicule about someone's appearance or background. Fourth: are colleagues in similar situations treated in the same way? Fifth: what is the effect on your health and your ability to work? Repeated behaviour directed at the person is an especially important warning sign, though a serious single incident also deserves attention. Keep a record of dates, exact words, witnesses, the communication channel and what followed. Save relevant online messages promptly and lawfully. If you seek help from a trusted person or a workplace reporting channel, start with a factual account rather than a legal conclusion. Attend to your health without waiting for a formal finding. Changing jobs can reduce exposure and anxiety, but it does not necessarily relieve depression, so the choice deserves careful thought rather than a blanket recommendation (Rosander et al., 2022). Document even one serious incident: depending on the country and the facts, it may violate other protections even where it does not meet the legal test for repeated bullying.

Related reading: How to tell workplace conflict from bullying; Why we sometimes misread relationships at work.

Repeated humiliation, exclusion and obstruction at work are best described through specific incidents and their effects. People experiencing bullying do not always recognise it straight away. Notes, saved messages and a thoughtful conversation can help you decide what to do next. Looking after your health matters from the outset.

Empatyzer: preparing to discuss troubling behaviour for the first time

You might tell Em: “My manager criticised my work in front of the team for the third time this month. I was also left off an important email. I need to raise it, but I don't know how to start.” Em can help you build a timeline, identify questions that need answering and draft an opening such as: “I'd like to discuss three occasions when my work was criticised in front of colleagues, and agree on how feedback should be given in future.” That gives you something more useful than replaying the same remarks in your head: a concrete conversation to prepare for, in a private space where you can gather your thoughts first.