Workplace Bullying by Coworkers or Subordinates: What to Do

When a colleague starts acting like your boss

A colleague at the same level begins assigning tasks to another employee in front of everyone, then correcting them publicly. Invitations to team breaks gradually stop. In the group chat, jokes about the person's "strange" way of speaking keep resurfacing. It is tempting to call this a personality clash or office politics. But if the pattern persists and one person is repeatedly humiliated or shut out, the problem may be workplace bullying by peers, sometimes called horizontal bullying. A formal title is not required for someone to gain power over another person. Control over information, friendships and the informal pecking order can be enough.

The phenomenon is visible in Polish survey data. In a 2024 CBOS report on experiences of workplace mistreatment, 8% of employed respondents reported mistreatment by colleagues over the preceding five years, compared with 13% who reported it from a superior; 18% reported one or the other. Among public-sector employees, 16% reported mistreatment by colleagues. These are respondents' reports of mistreatment, not a count of court-confirmed bullying cases. Polish law has now made the range of potential perpetrators explicit: since 5 November 2026, the Labour Code names peers, subordinates, other workers and groups among those whose repeated conduct may constitute bullying (amending Act, Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046). The rule concerns Poland; other countries use their own legal definitions. The broader lesson is universal: an employer cannot look only at what managers do.

Why ignoring someone can be as damaging as open hostility

Workplace ostracism can be difficult to prove because nothing dramatic seems to happen. A person is not invited to a meeting, their question goes unanswered or a decision is made in a chat they cannot see. Each omission can be explained away. Together, repeated exclusions may block someone from doing their job and tell them they no longer belong. A meta-analysis covering 95 samples and nearly 27,000 people associated workplace ostracism with lower job satisfaction, greater exhaustion and stronger intentions to quit (Li et al., 2021). In a longitudinal workplace study, ostracism predicted actual staff turnover three years later more strongly than harassment did (O'Reilly et al., 2015).

Gossip matters as well. Research reviewing workplace gossip suggests that harmful talk about an absent colleague can damage that person's relationships and standing in the team (Wax et al., 2022). Digital tools have simply created more places for these dynamics to unfold. A 2025 report from Poland's Central Institute for Labour Protection found that 48% of surveyed workers had experienced at least one form of cyberbullying-related behaviour in the past year, while 12.8% faced it at least monthly. These figures do not mean that 48% met a legal definition of mobbing. They show why repeated exclusion in messaging apps, selective replies and ridicule in group chats deserve attention. One missed message is not automatically bullying; an established pattern is another matter.

How a difference becomes a label, and then a target

Bullying rarely develops in a vacuum. Researcher Denise Salin described three sets of organisational conditions: enabling factors, such as unequal power and little risk to the aggressor; motivating factors, such as internal competition; and triggers, such as restructuring or changes in team membership (Salin, 2003). Informal alliances can turn an ordinary disagreement into a contest over who belongs. A colleague becomes "difficult", "odd" or "not one of us". Once the label sticks, every misstep seems to confirm it.

Drawing on 72 interviews with people who experienced bullying, Polish sociologist Piotr Chomczyński described rituals of degradation, scapegoating and the moment at which abusive treatment becomes a group norm (Chomczyński, 2020). Bystanders are part of that process, even when they never join the mockery. Research suggests that witnesses are more inclined to side with a perpetrator in some online situations and when the bullying is framed as a dispute about work tasks (Coyne et al., 2019). That is why "everyone was only joking" is not an adequate investigation. Ask who was repeatedly targeted, who was present, what information or opportunities were withheld, and how the group responded.

Who gets treated as an outsider?

Differences in nationality, tenure or communication style can make someone more visible and less protected by informal group loyalties. In a Swedish study, employees born abroad were more than twice as likely to experience workplace bullying as those born in Sweden; for people from more culturally distant countries, the risk was nearly four times as high. Much of this took the form of person-related mistreatment and exclusion (Rosander and Blomberg, 2022). These figures describe that study population, not every migrant workforce. They should prompt questions about access, belonging and reporting channels rather than assumptions about individuals.

New hires are another vulnerable group. Among 415 newly qualified nurses, access to information, support and workplace resources was associated with lower exposure to bullying (Laschinger et al., 2010). A poorly explained routine or an unspoken team rule can quickly become a pretext for ridicule. Neurodivergent colleagues may face further misunderstandings. A systematic review estimated that 44% of autistic people experienced some form of victimisation across the settings studied, although most of that evidence was not specific to employment (Trundle et al., 2023). In a separate experiment, non-autistic observers formed less favourable impressions from short video clips of autistic people than from transcripts of their words (Sasson et al., 2017). A different speaking style can therefore invite unfair judgments. The difference may help explain vulnerability; it never excuses mistreatment.

Can employees bully a boss? And what about conflicts between women?

Upward bullying means repeated hostile behaviour directed at someone with formal authority by employees reporting to them. It may involve undermining decisions, coordinated resistance, rumours or isolating the manager from information. Research identifies weak practical authority, low anticipated consequences, competition and organisational change as possible contributing conditions (Tuckey et al., 2024). Importantly, disagreeing with a supervisor, challenging an unfair decision or raising a grievance is not in itself bullying.

In one study of 491 subordinates, 70.6% reported at least one negative behaviour towards a supervisor during the preceding six months, but only 1.7% met the study's criteria for perpetrators of upward bullying (Wallace et al., 2010). The gap matters: a single unpleasant act is not equivalent to systematic bullying. Polish research also found exposure to bullying among employees in managerial positions (Drabek and Merecz, 2013).

Gender is another area where easy explanations mislead. A study found that women reported more incivility from women than from men in certain workplace contexts (Gabriel et al., 2018). Yet observers may judge conflict between two women more severely than otherwise similar conflict between two men (Sheppard and Aquino, 2013). This is a warning against the cliché that "women are worse to one another". Whether the people involved are women, men or mixed-gender colleagues, investigate the actual conduct, frequency and effects, not a stereotype.

What managers and witnesses can do today

Leadership is pivotal. A meta-analysis linked both authoritarian leadership and passive, hands-off leadership with workplace aggression (Cao et al., 2023). In a prospective study, ordinary conflicts were more likely to develop into new bullying cases where supervisors used a laissez-faire approach (Ågotnes et al., 2018). Silence can be mistaken for permission. A manager should therefore intervene when a pattern of public mockery, exclusion or withheld information emerges, without turning the targeted person into the spectacle.

Start with concrete team rules: who assigns tasks, who must be included in project chats, how meeting invitations are decided, how criticism is delivered and what crosses the line in humour. A manager might say, "Let's agree that the project lead assigns tasks," or "Please add Maya to this thread; she owns that part of the work." Give new starters a named contact and timely access to information. Review incentives that reward internal rivalry at the expense of cooperation. Document repeated incidents and provide a safe reporting route. If the reported pattern is serious, use a fair investigation rather than simply ordering the people involved to "sort it out".

Witnesses need practical words as well as permission to use them: "That comment wasn't okay. Let's get back to the issue" or, privately, "I noticed what happened in the chat. Do you want to talk?" Role-play-based bystander training can raise intentions to intervene, but organisational barriers may undermine the effect if leaders do not back it up (Kuntz and Searle, 2023). For more on that problem, see why witnesses to workplace mistreatment remain silent. For the boundary between a disagreement and repeated bullying, see how to distinguish a workplace conflict from bullying. In Poland, the employer's duty to prevent and respond to bullying also covers conduct by colleagues and subordinates; the practical response must be credible, not merely a policy on paper.

Repeated exclusion, rumours, humiliating jokes and withholding information can amount to bullying even when the behaviour comes from colleagues rather than a manager. A constructive response identifies the conduct, supports the person affected and sets clear standards, with responsibility shared by witnesses and leaders.

Empatyzer: agreeing on rules that include the whole team

In a project team, some colleagues agree on decisions in a private chat, leaving one teammate to find out only afterwards. The manager can use Empatyzer's similarity map to understand the group's range of working styles, then ask Em for a plan to discuss team norms. Instead of a vague appeal for respect, the team agrees on concrete changes: decisions go into a shared channel, everyone gets a chance to contribute in meetings, and feedback is given without ridicule. The colleague who feels excluded can separately prepare a conversation with her manager. Empatyzer helps turn an uneasy atmosphere into more predictable, inclusive cooperation.