When bullying severs one’s belonging at work, the pain is intense and prolonged, activating the same parts of the brain as physical injury (Williams, 2001). However, because the wounds don’t bruise or bleed, survivors and those who care for them are flummoxed by the fallout.
The need for connection is evolutionary. Traveling in packs offered physical protection and emotional support (Sapolsky, 2004). Though we have all been victims of transgressions, whether verbal tirades or gossip-mongering, exclusion carries the heaviest blow, as Williams and Zadro (2005) share, “One might argue that any sort of aversive interaction threatens belonging, but we find that ostracism threatens belonging more clearly and more strongly than other unpleasant social responses.”
So, why is unbelonging so painful?
The hurt stems from a cyclical unfolding within a dysfunctional work culture that shatters targets’ assumptions about the world and themselves, resulting in a moral injury, unseen but felt, which is intensified by organizations’ failure to act, leading to an institutional betrayal and leaving the targets without resolution and suffering an ambiguous loss.
In the Beginning
Targets of workplace bullying share common characteristics. They tend to be intellectually curious, experts in their fields, who possess a strong sense of self and are guided by a well-calibrated moral compass. They are productive and creative, naturally viewing the world at a slant, offering them a fresh and innovative perspective. Uninterested in office politics, they stay above the fray, yet their commitment to truth and justice compels them to call out bad behavior, despite the high cost to self typically incurred by whistleblowers (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005; Suskind, 2023).
Although these are admirable characteristics in high-functioning organizations, the targets’ propensity to recalibrate the status quo and untangle institutional problems makes them threats to dysfunctional cultures, where leaders’ powers are contingent on complicity and secrets.
When these superstars enter the workplace, with resumes documenting their excellence, they expect a culture of psychological safety, which Edmondson (2019) defines as “a climate in which people are comfortable expressing and being themselves. More specifically, when people have psychological safety at work, they feel comfortable sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment or retribution. They are confident that they can speak up and won’t be humiliated, ignored, or blamed.”
However, instead, the targets enter the dragon’s den, left alone to navigate this new topsy-turvy, nonsensical terrain.
Reality Turns Upside Down
Nothing makes sense in the bullying paradigm. Innovation and excellence make the superstar a target. Private disclosures to trusted colleagues get put on display and used as ammunition. And, ethical employees who report harm and wrongdoing are vilified when their only offense is “committing the truth” (Devine and Maassarani, 2011).
As this new reality sets in, the targets’ pain is palpable, evoking anxiety and depression alongside other health concerns (Fraser, 2022; Perron et al., 2020). To stop the spinning, targets reach out to their managers for assistance or file complaints with HR, only to find their concerns swiftly dismissed or boomeranged back, characterizing them as the aggressor instead of the aggrieved. Freyd (1997) coined the term DARVO (Deny-Attack-Reverse Victim and Offender) to describe this tactic of flipping the script, which involves discrediting victims and deflecting attention from the actual problems.
Shattered Assumptions
The mean-spiritedness and unfairness of it all shatter targets’ assumptions, making them doubt their belief in a benevolent world. Where once driven by mission and enthused by like-minded colleagues, now they find themselves doubting their co-workers’ true intentions while tending to battle wounds, leaving them little time to do the work that fuels their passions.
Suddenly, the world feels unpredictable and meaningless as constant and unexpected roadblocks divert their focus. As pieces of themselves splinter off, they are left feeling alone and doubting their inherent self-worth (Janoff-Bulman, 2010).
It is a gaslighting of sorts, where the environment “operates through a systematic pattern of generating doubt about your experiences, memory, perception, judgment, and emotions. Sustained gaslighting causes you to question reality, and it qualifies as emotional abuse” (Durvasula, 2024).
Moral Injury
Shattering a person’s assumptive world—their beliefs about themselves, others, and the larger community—does not leave the visual markings of a physical wound, but instead a moral injury or “an act of transgression that creates dissonance and conflict because it violates…beliefs about right and wrong and personal goodness” (Litz et. al., 2016).
A moral injury, according to Shay (2014), occurs when an individual in a position of authority betrays what is right in a high-stakes situation. Whereas in PTSD individuals lose their sense of safety, in moral injury, targets lose their propensity to trust people and organizations. Although two people may experience similar workplace bullying experiences, their moral injuries will likely differ. One moral injury may be rooted in the unequal treatment of employees, whereas another may be grounded in an institution’s failure to protect those they are charged to serve, such as children, patients, or clients.
Once inflicted, moral injuries result in a profound sense of betrayal, shame, and hopelessness, as targets are denied the opportunity to live into their values and have agency over their work (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).
Institutional Betrayal
Though the moral injury inflicts the initial wound, institutional betrayal exponentially exacerbates the injuries.
In the workplace, a social contract exists between the employer and the employee. In exchange for successfully carrying out their job responsibilities, employees expect a living wage, a safe work environment, and a forum for expressing concerns when they arise. However, when an employee voices an issue, and the organization dismisses the problem, exercises institutional complicity, or attacks the messenger, evoking DARVO (Deny-Attack-Reverse Victim and Offender), the contract breaches (Harsey & Freyd, 2020).
Such violations are more likely to occur in organizations where abusive behavior is normalized, ethical violations are ignored, whistleblowers are penalized, and blame and shame approaches to navigating problems trump curiosity. These organizations often, but not always, benefit from embedded trust and prestige, such as hospitals, religious institutions, and schools (Parnitzke & Freyd, 2014).
Institutional betrayal leaves the target despondent, alone, and with little recourse. These feelings of hopelessness result in a deep sense of loss.
Ambiguous Loss
There are many types of losses, including the loss of a loved one, loss of ideals, and losses that cannot be quantified or traced. It is these amorphous losses that frame the workplace bullying trajectory. An amorphous loss is ambiguous, defined by Boss (2021) as “a loss that remains unclear and without official verification or immediate resolution, which may never be achieved.”
Ambiguous losses lack form and closure. For bullying targets, the character assassination results in a loss of identity, the abandonment by once-close colleagues leads to a loss of relationships, and the institutional betrayal leads to a loss of trust in organizations.
Though many losses are irreversible, a kind word about the deceased or an apology letter for the altercation offers compassion and a modicum of relief. Yet when it comes to workplace abuse, after the culminating event, the stage is eerily quiet, with nobody offering ownership or condolences. Thus, targets are left to grieve alone with no apology or defined closure.
In other words, workplace bullying hurts.
