2025-10-12

Education Health Investigative Law Management

Upward bullying: under-recognised in health services

bullying, downward, groups, harassment, management, risk, stress, upward

Estimated reading time at 200 wpm: 11 minutes

When people speak of ‘bullying’ at the workplace unknowingly they are referring to one type of bullying, called “downward bullying.” This is where a person in a position of authority abuses their power usually to suborodinate workers or those are a similar level. A growing body of evidence suggests that bullying can also flow in the opposite direction. This phenomenon, known as “upward bullying,” occurs when subordinates engage in repeated aggressive or disrespectful behaviours towards their superiors, undermining their authority and creating a hostile work environment. This article explores the concept of upward bullying, its definitions, contributing factors, group dynamics, and potential impacts on individuals and organisations. ¹.

Defining Upward Bullying [UB]

Upward bullying, also known as subordinate bullying, is characterised by repeated acts of aggression or disrespect directed by one or more subordinates towards their manager or someone in a more senior role². It is important to distinguish upward bullying from constructive feedback or legitimate grievances. Upward bullying involves a pattern of behaviour intended to harm, intimidate, or undermine the manager’s authority, rather than to address genuine concerns or improve work processes³.

Whether or not you agree our Fat Disclaimer applies

Some definitions of workplace bullying require the behaviour to occur repeatedly over a long period and involve a power imbalance where the target has difficulty defending themselves⁴. It can occur face-to-face, on social media, in emails, or calls, and can happen at work or in other work-related situations⁵.

Source	Definition
³	Repeated behaviour directed at a manager by a subordinate that is intended to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm.
²	Bullying by an employee or group of employees towards their immediate manager, or someone in a more senior role.
⁶	Bullying by a member (or members) of staff towards their manager.

These descriptions highlight the key elements of upward bullying: a target who is a manager or someone in a position of authority; a perpetrator who is one or more subordinates; repeated acts of aggression, disrespect, or undermining; and an intent to cause harm or damage to the target.

Circumstances and Contexts Conducive to Upward Bullying

Upward bullying can arise from various individual, relational, and organisational factors. Studies indicate that certain circumstances and contexts may increase the likelihood of upward bullying:

Organisational Factors:

Organisational change: When an organisation undergoes significant change, such as restructuring, downsising, or a change in leadership, employees may feel insecure or resentful. This can create an environment where upward bullying is more likely to occur, as employees may direct their frustration or anxiety towards their managers⁷.
Role ambiguity: When roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined, it can create confusion and power struggles. Subordinates may exploit this ambiguity to challenge their manager’s authority or undermine their decisions³.
Cultural factors: A workplace culture that tolerates or even encourages incivility and disrespect can create a breeding ground for upward bullying³.
Technology: The rise of electronic communication and digital platforms has made it easier for employees to connect and coordinate their actions, potentially facilitating upward bullying through online forums, social media, or group messaging⁶.

Individual Factors:

Perceived injustice: If employees feel they have been treated unfairly or that their contributions are not valued, they may resort to upward bullying as a way to express their frustration or seek retribution³.
New managers: Managers who are new to an organisation or a leadership role may be perceived as less experienced or less powerful, making them easier targets for upward bullying⁶.
Direct supervisors: Direct supervisors appear to be more vulnerable to being bullied compared with middle and senior management¹. This may be because they are more accessible to subordinate staff and have less formal power than higher-level managers.
Gender: Evidence shows that gender can play a role in upward bullying⁸. Some team members may not recognise the legitimacy of a female boss, leading to hostility and bullying.

Relational Factors:

Power struggles: Informal power dynamics, such as social alliances, specialised knowledge, or access to information, can empower subordinates to challenge their manager’s authority³.
Managerial isolation: When a manager is geographically isolated from their peers and superiors, or when they lack support from higher management, they become more vulnerable to upward bullying⁷.

Group Dynamics in Upward Bullying

Upward bullying is often a collective phenomenon, with a group of subordinates engaging in coordinated efforts to undermine their manager². This can create a “mob mentality” where individuals feel emboldened by the support of their peers and less accountable for their actions⁶.

Several factors contribute to the dynamics of group upward bullying:

Shared grievances: A group of employees may share a common grievance against their manager. For example, if a team feels that their manager consistently overloads them with work without providing adequate support or recognition, this shared frustration could contribute to a climate of resentment and potentially lead to upward bullying.
Social influence: Individuals within the group may influence each other’s perceptions and behaviours, reinforcing negative attitudes towards the manager and encouraging participation in bullying.
Diffusion of responsibility: When a group is involved in bullying, individuals may feel less personal responsibility for their actions, as they can attribute blame to the group as a whole.
Anonymity: Technology can provide a sense of anonymity, making it easier for individuals to engage in bullying behaviour without fear of being identified or held accountable.

How Groups of Subordinates Engage in Upward Bullying

Groups of subordinates may employ various tactics to engage in upward bullying:

Tactic	Description	Example
Withholding Information	Deliberately withholding critical information from the manager to hinder their decision-making and undermine their effectiveness.	A team might withhold information about a project’s progress, causing the manager to appear uninformed or unprepared in meetings with senior management⁸.
Spreading Rumours and Gossip	Creating and disseminating negative rumours or gossip about the manager to damage their reputation and erode their credibility.	Subordinates might spread rumours about the manager’s personal life or professional competence, creating a climate of distrust and suspicion⁸.
Constant Criticism and Undermining	Continuously criticising the manager’s decisions, leadership style, or competence to create a hostile and demoralising environment.	Team members might constantly question the manager’s judgment in meetings or make sarcastic comments about their leadership abilities⁸.
Public Disrespect	Openly challenging or defying the manager’s authority in front of others to undermine their leadership and create a sense of chaos.	Subordinates might openly contradict the manager’s instructions in team meetings or refuse to participate in initiatives they disagree with⁸.
Unrealistic Demands	Making excessive or unreasonable demands on the manager’s time and resources to create stress and overwhelm.	Employees might constantly request the manager’s approval for minor decisions or demand immediate responses to non-urgent requests⁸.
False Accusations	Filing unfounded complaints or grievances against the manager to trigger investigations and damage their reputation, even if the accusations are ultimately dismissed.	A group of employees might collude to accuse the manager of bullying or harassment, knowing that the investigation process itself can be damaging³.
Vexatious Complaints	Filing repeated complaints that are found to be without a factual basis to harass and undermine the manager.	An employee might repeatedly submit complaints about minor issues or perceived slights, creating a constant stream of negativity and diverting the manager’s attention from their core responsibilities³.
Insubordination	Refusing to follow instructions, meet deadlines, or comply with rules to disrupt workflow and undermine the manager’s authority.	Team members might consistently miss deadlines or arrive late to meetings without valid reasons, demonstrating a lack of respect for the manager’s authority⁸.
Cyberbullying	Using electronic communication or social media to harass, intimidate, or spread false information about the manager.	Subordinates might use social media platforms or online forums to make derogatory comments about the manager or share confidential information³.

Impact of Upward Bullying

Upward bullying can have significant negative impacts on both individuals and organisations. Recall that UB may be perpetrated by single individuals or groups of subordinates.

Impact on Individuals:

Studies have shown that upward bullying can have a profound emotional and psychological impact on managers¹. Targeted managers may experience feelings of isolation and have their reputations ruined, even when accusations against them are proven false³. They may also experience:

Psychological distress: Targeted managers may experience stress, anxiety, depression, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Reduced job satisfaction: Upward bullying can lead to decreased job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment⁹.
Damage to reputation: False accusations and negative rumours can damage the manager’s reputation and career prospects³.
Health problems: Stress and anxiety can manifest in physical health problems, such as sleep disturbances, headaches, and digestive issues.
Turnover: Targeted managers may feel compelled to leave their jobs due to the hostile work environment and lack of support³.

Impact on Organisations:

Upward bullying can be costly for organisations, leading to decreased productivity, increased turnover, and higher healthcare expenses³. Other organisational impacts include:

Decreased productivity: A hostile work environment and strained relationships can lead to decreased productivity and efficiency³.
Increased turnover: Loss of experienced managers due to upward bullying can disrupt workflow and increase recruitment and training costs³.
Damaged morale: Witnessing upward bullying can create a climate of fear and mistrust, negatively impacting team morale and collaboration³.
Reputational damage: If upward bullying is not addressed, it can damage the organisation’s reputation and make it less attractive to potential employees⁸.
Legal risks: In some cases, upward bullying can escalate into harassment or discrimination, potentially leading to legal action against the organisation⁸.

Addressing and Preventing Upward Bullying

Organisations need to take proactive steps to address and prevent upward bullying:

Clear policies: Develop and implement clear policies that explicitly address upward bullying and outline the consequences for engaging in such behaviour².
Training and education: Provide training to all employees on recognising and responding to upward bullying, emphasising the importance of respectful communication and conflict resolution².
Open communication: Create a workplace culture that encourages open communication and provides channels for employees to raise concerns without fear of retaliation⁷.
Fair investigations: Ensure that all complaints of upward bullying are investigated fairly and thoroughly, taking into account the perspectives of both the manager and the subordinate(s)⁷.
Leadership accountability: Hold senior leaders accountable for creating a positive and respectful work environment and for addressing upward bullying promptly and effectively³. This includes taking upward bullying seriously and avoiding blaming the targeted manager³.
Zero tolerance: Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to bullying of any kind, regardless of the perpetrator’s position or status within the organisation³.
Guidelines for managing student bullying: Establish clear guidelines and processes for managing incidents where students have been victims of bullying while on clinical placement⁹.
Psychosocial safety climate: Promote a psychosocial safety climate within the organisation, where employees feel safe to speak up about concerns and challenge unacceptable behaviour⁹.
Early intervention: Address potentially harmful behaviours early on, before they escalate into more serious forms of bullying⁴.
Understanding the stresses on managers: Recognise and address the unique stresses and challenges faced by managers, which can contribute to their vulnerability to upward bullying⁴. Provide support and resources to managers who are experiencing upward bullying, such as counselling, coaching, or mediation⁷.

One possible reason for the underreporting of upward bullying is that managers may perceive it as an admission of failure in their management style⁷. This perception needs to be challenged, and managers should be encouraged to seek support and report upward bullying without fear of negative consequences.

Conclusion

Upward bullying is a complex and concerning phenomenon with the potential to inflict significant harm on individuals and organisations. While it may be less recognised than traditional downward bullying, its impact is no less severe. By understanding the dynamics of upward bullying, recognising the factors that contribute to its occurrence, and implementing effective prevention and intervention strategies, organisations can foster a more respectful, supportive, and productive work environment for all employees.

The research highlights the need for a shift in perspective, recognising that anyone, regardless of their position within an organisation, can be a target of bullying. This requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of upward bullying, promotes a culture of respect and accountability, and empowers both managers and employees to challenge unacceptable behaviour. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of upward bullying, develop more targeted intervention strategies, and evaluate the effectiveness of different prevention programs. By continuing to shed light on this often-overlooked issue, we can create workplaces where everyone feels safe, valued, and respected.

References

Exploring the enablers, motivators, and triggers of upwards bullying, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02678373.2024.2308826
How to Deal with Upward Bullying | DavidsonMorris, https://www.davidsonmorris.com/upward-bullying/
The Boss as a Target: Recognising and Stopping Upward Bullying …, https://pshra.org/the-boss-as-a-target-recognising-and-stopping-upward-bullying/
Research – The Upward Bully, https://theupwardbully.com/research/
What bullying is – Bullying at work – Acas, https://www.acas.org.uk/bullying-at-work
Upward Bullying – The CPD Certification Service, https://www.cpduk.co.uk/news/upward-bullying
Upward Bullying – BulliesOut, https://bulliesout.com/help-hub/articles/upward-bullying/
Upward Bullying in the Workplace | Expert HR Consultancy, https://www.fitzgeraldhr.co.uk/upward-bullying/
Turning the tables: The growth of upward bullying in … – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259911709_Turning_the_tables_The_growth_of_upward_bullying_in_nursing_academia_Editorial

Exploring the enablers, motivators, and triggers of upwards bullying, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02678373.2024.2308826

Parameter	Semmelweis Reflex	Doublethink	Cognitive Dissonance	Groupthink
Proponent(s)	Ignaz Semmelweis (mid-19th century)	George Orwell (1949)	Leon Festinger (1957)	Irving Janis (1972)
Focus	Immediate rejection of proposals, ideas or new knowledge.	Internalised control and often maintained by external pressure.	Internal conflict	Group conformity
Source of Tension	Probably none unless the above return in which case cognitive dissonance may emerge.	Contradictory thoughts imposed from outside and often accepted.	Conflicting ideas within an individual or group minds	Pressure to maintain group harmony
Level of Tension	None – as nothing to consider immediately after rejection.	Suppressed, may manifest indirectly	High, consciously felt	Varies – can be high for dissenters, low for those conforming
Risk or advantage to individual or organisation	Stagnation, missed opportunities	Loss of critical thinking, vulnerability to manipulation	Potential for growth if dissonance is addressed constructively and not defensively – else risk worsens	Suppression of individuality; potential for harmful choice.
Risk to Society	Impedes progress, can harm others (e.g. ignoring medical advances)	Fuels authoritarianism, large-scale manipulation	Can lead to irrational behaviour	Leads to flawed decision-making, erosion of ethics
Mitigation	Critical evaluation of evidence, willingness to change course – if ideas return.	Resisting indoctrination, fostering independent thought	Self-awareness, open-mindedness, seeking diverse perspectives	Encouraging dissent, establishing processes for questioning assumptions
Resolution	Often requires a crisis or overwhelming evidence to break through resistance	Requires breaking free of external control which can be incredibly difficult	Changing beliefs/behaviour, finding new information or justifications to align with actions	Challenging group norms, breaking cohesiveness, can involve confrontation, ostracism, or the group dissolving

Stage	Cost/Price (£)	Tax/Duty (£)	Tax/Duty Type	Calculation	Calculation
1. Manufacturer’s Cost	2	0	N/A	This is a hypothetical cost of production.
2. Specific Duty Added	2	5.89	Specific Duty	£294.72 per 1000 cigarettes / 1000 * 20	Fixed amount per pack.
3. Manufacturer’s Profit	7.89	0	N/A	(Assumed to bring the total to £7.89)	This is a hypothetical profit margin.
4. Ad Valorem Duty Included	9	1.11	Ad Valorem Duty	16.5% of £9.00 (approx. retail price before VAT)	Included within the retail price, not added separately.
5. Retailer’s Profit	10.11	0	N/A	(Assumed to bring the total to £10.11)	This is a hypothetical profit margin.
6. Final Retail Price (excl VAT)	13	0	N/A	(Includes specific duty and ad valorem duty)	This is the price displayed on the shelf, excluding VAT.
7. VAT Added	13	2.6	Value Added Tax (VAT)	20% of £13.00	Applied at the point of sale.
Total	15.6	9.6	Approximately 61.5% of the final price (£15.60) is tax – due to the simplified conservative assumptions about manufacturer and retailer costs and profit margins.

Documentation Issue	Critique
Vague Descriptors	Terms like “distressed state,” “emptiness,” and “intense anger” lack specific behavioural anchors. The descriptions are mere observations without any real substance. How was the intensity of the anger manifested? What did the patient say? How did she appear? Was she grimacing? Without concrete examples, these descriptors are open to interpretation and do not provide a clear picture of the patient’s presentation.
Generalised Interventions	Phrases like “explored coping mechanisms” and “discussed strategies” are so general that they amount to padding. No one will know what specific coping mechanisms were explored. How did this worker actually attempt to help the patient? What exact strategies were discussed? How were these tailored to the patient’s individual needs and the nature of their emotional instability?
Lack of Measurable Outcomes	The record mentions the patient feeling “slightly calmer” but lacks objective measures to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. How was this improvement gauged? Is it just ‘your’ word for saying so? Many services will accept such records as ‘standard’ because of cultural norms.
Ambiguous Plan	The plan to “continue to work on developing skills” and “encourage the patient to practice techniques” is vague and lacks specific, measurable goals. What specific skills will be targeted? What techniques were discussed ‘between sessions’? How will progress be monitored? What constitutes “practice” in this context, and how will adherence be assessed?
Omission of Risk Assessment	Given the nature of EUPD and the potential for self-harm, the record should include a formal risk assessment. What specific risk factors were considered? How was the risk of self-harm evaluated and managed?
Limited Patient-Specific Insight	While the record mentions EUPD, it does not provide specific insights into how this diagnosis informs the interventions or the plan. How were the chosen strategies tailored to the patient’s unique challenges related to their personality disorder?

Cognitive Activity	Description
1. Information synthesis	Gathering and integrating diverse information; evaluating reliability and relevance of each piece
2. Evidence evaluation	Critically assessing quality and strength of available evidence; identifying gaps
3. Principle balancing	Weighing competing ethical principles; reconciling guidelines with case-specific considerations
4. Stakeholder consideration	Analysing individual patient needs/rights; considering regulatory and societal requirements
5. Consequence projection	Anticipating potential outcomes; assessing short-term and long-term consequences
6. Risk-benefit analysis	Systematically evaluating risks; weighing risks against potential benefits
7. Legal framework integration	Incorporating relevant legal standards; ensuring compliance with statutory obligations
8. Ethical reasoning	Applying ethical frameworks; resolving ethical dilemmas in forensic psychiatric practice
9. Interdisciplinary integration	Synthesising perspectives from various disciplines; reconciling conflicting viewpoints
10. Decision refinement	Iteratively reviewing and adjusting decisions; fine-tuning to address all relevant factors
11. Uncertainty management	Acknowledging areas of uncertainty; developing mitigation strategies
12. Prioritisation	Determining relative importance of factors; focusing on critical elements
13. Cognitive bias recognition	Identifying potential biases; implementing strategies to minimise their impact
14. Justification formulation	Developing clear, logical rationale; ensuring transparent and defensible reasoning
15. Contextual adaptation	Tailoring approach to specific case factors; recognising unique case influences