The Function of Dysfunction: How Workplace Bullying Sustains Itself
What happens when the person subjected to workplace bullying begins to carry the effects of the dysfunction within the relationship? Drawing on family systems thinking, this article asks what behavior does within the relational system in which it is embedded. When a person is subjected to bullying and abuse, their survival responses and coping mechanisms can become woven into the relationship. Silence, appeasement, vigilance, over-compliance, withdrawal, or taking on more than is reasonable may help the person manage an unsafe situation while also allowing the surrounding system to remain organized around the dysfunction. Over time, the person subjected to the abuse can come to carry its effects, while the behavior that created those responses becomes less visible. The article explores how dysfunction can serve a function within a relational system, how workplaces can adjust around the survival responses of the person being bullied, and how responsibility can shift onto the person with the least power. Read on.
How Deep Culture and Deep Structure Sustain Workplace Bullying
Workplace bullying is often treated as a “personality problem,” yet it persists because it is typically sustained by deeper forces inside organizations. Drawing on Johan Galtung’s (2003) concept of a “deeper layer” beneath visible conflict, this article shows how bullying becomes system-consistent through deep structures (incentives, complaint pathways, risk logic), deep culture (minimization norms and gendered credibility gaps), and repeated violations of basic human needs for safety, dignity, and reality-validation. It also introduces a crucial modern asymmetry: organizations can function as legal “persons” while lacking an embodied moral nervous system, making it easier for harm to be absorbed by employees rather than repaired by the system. Read on.
Why Destructive Leadership Persists Despite Being Largely Preventable
Survey evidence indicated that most managers felt ill-prepared to communicate with staff (Harris Poll & Interact, 2019), and only a fraction possessed the naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior needed for effective leadership (Gallup, 2015). When supervisory behavior becomes harmful, the consequences include spiraling stress, clinical anxiety, and major talent loss (Tepper, 2000; Nahum-Shani, Henderson, Lim, & Vinokur, 2014). This article reviews the prevalence of destructive leadership, analyzes its psychological and economic costs, and synthesizes the most recent empirical findings on how leadership either steadies or destabilizes groups during adversity. It also explains why poorly equipped “accidental” managers persist and distills evidence-based remedies that combine rigorous selection, skills training, self-awareness practices, and redesigned remote-work protocols. Read on.