WORKPLACE MOBBING AND CYBERBULLYING: DYNAMICS, CONSEQUENCES, AND PREVENTION

Article written in collaboration with @DOTT.SSA_FEDERICAFLAMMENT

Mobbing as an Organizational Phenomenon

Mobbing represents one of the most pervasive and harmful forms of psychological violence in contemporary work contexts. It is not a single isolated event, but rather a systematically hostile and prolonged form of communication that develops within professional relationships (Leymann, 1996). This phenomenon typically targets an individual who occupies a position of lower formal or informal power compared to the aggressor, making it difficult to defend oneself or interrupt the dynamic. Mobbing progressively undermines the victim’s sense of safety and belonging within the organization. Over time, the workplace becomes a context perceived as threatening and unpredictable. This transformation has profound effects not only on the individual but also on the overall functioning of the organization. For this reason, mobbing is now considered a structural issue rather than an exclusively individual one.

From a theoretical perspective, mobbing falls within the broader framework of Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs). These behaviors are intentional and aimed at harming individuals or the organization itself through acts of aggression, sabotage, or exclusion (Spector & Fox, 2005). Mobbing represents a specific form of CWB characterized by a strong relational and symbolic component. Aggression is not always explicit, but often manifests through repeated micro-behaviors that, taken together, produce a devastating impact. The subtle nature of these actions makes the phenomenon difficult to recognize and report. This contributes to its persistence over time. The literature highlights how the normalization of such behaviors fosters a dysfunctional organizational climate.

It is important to emphasize that mobbing does not emerge in a vacuum but develops within specific organizational contexts. Factors such as excessive workloads, role ambiguity, and dysfunctional leadership styles increase the risk of hostile behaviors (Einarsen et al., 2020). In organizations characterized by poor communication and intense competitiveness, mobbing may be implicitly tolerated or even encouraged. This leads to a progressive erosion of ethical and relational norms. The absence of clear prevention policies further exacerbates the problem. In this sense, mobbing can be understood as an indicator of organizational distress. Addressing it requires intervention at the system level.

Actors Involved and Types of Mobbing

Several actors with distinct roles can be identified in mobbing dynamics. The mobber is the individual who engages in hostile, degrading, and persecutory behaviors toward the victim. These actions may include threats, unfounded accusations, and systematic devaluation of the victim’s work (Giorgi & Majer, 2009). The mobber does not necessarily act alone but may be supported by a group or a permissive organizational culture. Formal or informal power is often used to maintain control over the situation. Aggressive behavior is frequently justified as “management” or “performance demands.” In reality, it constitutes a destructive dynamic that undermines personal dignity. Responsibility never lies with the victim.

The mobbed individual undergoes a progressive process of delegitimization and isolation. They are mocked, humiliated, and deprived of the resources necessary to perform their job adequately (Leymann, 1996). This leads to a loss of confidence in oneself and one’s professional skills. Feelings of helplessness intensify as the aggression continues. Victims often internalize blame, developing shame and self-devaluation. The lack of social support further aggravates the situation. Over time, leaving the organization may be perceived as the only possible solution. This outcome represents a serious loss for both the individual and the organization.

From a typological perspective, mobbing can take different forms. Vertical mobbing occurs when aggression comes from a hierarchically superior figure, often constituting an abuse of power (Einarsen et al., 2020). This form is particularly insidious, as the victim has fewer opportunities to defend themselves. Horizontal mobbing, on the other hand, is carried out by colleagues at the same hierarchical level. In such cases, dynamics of competition, envy, or group conformity play a significant role. Both types have equally harmful effects. Understanding these distinctions is essential for implementing targeted interventions. Prevention strategies must take these specificities into account.

From Offline Dynamics to Workplace Cyberbullying

With the digitalization of work, mobbing has taken on new forms, giving rise to workplace cyberbullying. This type of aggression manifests through the use of digital technologies such as email, messaging apps, and collaborative work platforms (Farley et al., 2016). Workplace cyberbullying is characterized by repeated and persistent negative behaviors over time. The online dimension amplifies the impact of aggression, making it potentially continuous and pervasive. Victims can be reached even outside working hours. This contributes to a constant sense of intrusion. The boundary between work life and private life becomes increasingly blurred.

A central element of workplace cyberbullying is online social exclusion. Being ignored in communications, excluded from virtual meetings, or receiving important information late are common examples (Privitera & Campbell, 2009). These behaviors, although seemingly harmless, have significant effects on psychological well-being. Exclusion undermines the fundamental need for belonging. The lack of direct confrontation makes it difficult to clearly attribute intent, increasing the victim’s confusion. Over time, perceived isolation turns into chronic stress. This type of aggression is often underestimated by organizations. However, its effects are comparable to those of traditional mobbing.

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the spread of remote work, increasing the risk of workplace cyberbullying. Smart working, if not properly regulated, can foster the deterioration of relationships among colleagues (Eurofound, 2020). Altered sleep patterns and sedentary lifestyles contribute to increased stress levels. The imbalance between work and personal life becomes more pronounced. In this context, tensions often spill over into family life. Cyberbullying thus occurs within a broader framework of vulnerability. Organizations must recognize these emerging risks. Timely intervention is essential to protect workers’ health.

Effects of Mobbing on Health and Organizational Performance

The consequences of mobbing and cyberbullying on psychological health are well documented. Victims report high levels of chronic stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and, in severe cases, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Prolonged exposure to hostile behaviors compromises emotional and cognitive functioning. Individuals may develop difficulties with concentration and memory. Professional identity is also called into question. These effects do not automatically disappear once the aggression stops. They often require targeted clinical interventions. The human cost of these dynamics is extremely high.

In addition to psychological effects, mobbing has significant repercussions on physical health. Sleep disturbances, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular symptoms are frequently reported (Giorgi et al., 2016). Chronic stress activates dysfunctional physiological responses. Over time, the body becomes less capable of adapting to environmental demands. This increases vulnerability to psychosomatic illnesses. Physical and mental health are closely interconnected. Ignoring one dimension inevitably worsens the other. Organizations often underestimate these warning signs. This contributes to increased healthcare and social costs.

From an organizational perspective, mobbing negatively affects performance. A decline in productivity, increased absenteeism, and high employee turnover are commonly observed (Hoel et al., 2011). The loss of qualified human resources represents a substantial economic burden. Moreover, the organizational climate deteriorates, affecting even workers who are not directly involved. Perceptions of injustice and insecurity spread rapidly. This reduces engagement and motivation. Organizations that tolerate mobbing compromise their reputation. Investing in prevention is therefore both an ethical and strategic choice.

Prevention and Organizational Responsibility

Preventing mobbing and cyberbullying requires a multi-level approach. Staff training is a fundamental tool for increasing awareness and developing relational skills (Argentero & Cortese, 2016). Through targeted training programs, workers can learn to recognize early signs of distress. Knowledge fosters individual empowerment. Moreover, training helps create an organizational culture based on respect. It is not merely about transmitting information but about promoting attitudinal change. Primary prevention is always more effective than late interventions. Investing in training is a sustainable long-term strategy.

Organizational leadership plays a crucial role in prevention. Leaders influence the emotional and relational climate of work groups (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). Ethical and transformational leadership styles reduce the risk of hostile behaviors. Conversely, authoritarian or absent leadership may facilitate the emergence of mobbing. Leaders must be trained to manage conflicts constructively. They must also be able to intervene promptly in high-risk situations. Responsibility for prevention cannot be delegated solely to human resources departments. It is a shared responsibility at all organizational levels.

Another key element is the development of emotional intelligence. The ability to understand and regulate one’s own emotions and those of others is associated with healthier workplace relationships (Goleman, 1995). Promoting emotional intelligence fosters empathy, effective communication, and stress management. This helps reduce aggression and social exclusion. Furthermore, promoting psychological safety allows workers to express distress without fear of retaliation. A safe work environment is a productive one. Preventing mobbing is therefore an investment in collective well-being. Change begins with organizational awareness.

Conclusions

Mobbing and cyberbullying are forms of psychological violence that leave deep, often invisible scars. Recognizing them is the first step toward effective intervention. These are not individual problems but systemic phenomena requiring structured responses. Responsibility is shared among individuals, organizations, and institutions. Promoting healthy work environments means safeguarding people’s dignity and health. Prevention is both possible and necessary. Investing in organizational well-being is an ethical and strategic decision. Talking about mobbing means giving a voice to those who often remain silent.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 

Argentero, P., & Cortese, C. (2016). Work psychology. Milan: Raffaello Cortina Editore.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed.). CRC Press.

Eurofound. (2020). Living, working and COVID-19. Publications Office of the European Union.

Farley, S., Coyne, I., D’Cruz, P., & Sprigg, C. (2016). Cyberbullying at work: Understanding the influence of technology. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(1), 1–15.

Giorgi, G., & Majer, V. (2009). Mobbing: Organizational virus. Florence: Giunti O.S.

Giorgi, G., et al. (2016). Workplace bullying and employee health. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 152.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2011). The experience of bullying in Great Britain. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11(6), 423–436.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332.

Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 395–400.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor–emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 15(3), 167–184.