Workplace Bullying: Everyday Warfare at Work and the Cost of Compliance

Workplace bullying, much like warfare, represents a complex interplay of power struggles, unresolved conflict, and harmful psychological dynamics. This article explores how workplace bullying can be understood through the powerful and recurring metaphor of warfare, drawing on empirical research that captures the lived experiences of targets who vividly describe their struggles in terms of battles, sieges, and survival. Drawing parallels between these arenas reveals profound insights into individual and organizational suffering and offers a pathway toward more effective conflict resolution and healing. This article bridges disciplinary insights by integrating contemporary psychological research and conflict studies, framing workplace abuse as a microcosm of warfare and emphasizing the necessity of enforceable policies and comprehensive training to combat recurring misconduct and foster conflict competence.

Empirical Foundations of the Warfare Metaphor

The work of Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts (2006) vividly captures the “warfare” metaphor at the heart of workplace bullying. These researchers interviewed targets of bullying and analyzed the rich metaphors they used to recount their experiences. Common analogies included war battles, water torture, nightmares, and exposure to noxious substances. Targets described their daily work life as “being in a battle,” “fighting a war,” and “receiving unexpected attacks.” The workplace became a “battleground” where targets felt trapped in a “constant fight for survival.” Bullies were depicted as narcissistic dictators, two-faced actors, and devil figures. These metaphors powerfully reflect a state of being under siege, constantly vigilant, and assaulted by relentless aggression—echoing war zones more than professional environments. Additional war-related metaphors included ‘hand-to-hand combat’ and ‘navigating a minefield.’ Some targets reported symptoms reminiscent of war-related post-traumatic stress, reinforcing this analogy.

Expanding on this foundational work, Lutgen-Sandvik (2008) described how targets engage in “intensive remedial identity work,” often framing their survival and resistance in terms of ongoing combat and psychological warfare, highlighting the exhaustive and persistent nature of their experiences. These insights build on earlier research by Hoel and Einarsen (2003), who identified militarized language and battle metaphors as common in bullying narratives, emphasizing the hostile and violent atmosphere that victims endure.

Having established the empirical grounding of the warfare metaphor in workplace bullying narratives, we now turn to explore how these individual experiences resonate with and illuminate larger-scale conflict dynamics, such as those seen in geopolitical struggles.

War and Workplace Bullying: Shared Patterns of Conflict and Power

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and escalated into a full-scale conflict with the 2022 invasion, exemplifies stark dynamics of unilateral aggression, power imbalance, and ongoing trauma (Council on Foreign Relations, 2025; Institute for the Study of War, 2025). Scholarly analyses of this war contextualize it as a profound struggle over control, survival, and identity, mirroring micropolitics inherent in workplace bullying (Clement & Haan, 2023; Ivanov & Sokolova, 2025; Petrenko, 2024; Kuznetsova, 2023). Research focusing on leadership amid this crisis reveals patterns of abusive authority and subordination that parallel toxic organizational behavior (Ivanov & Sokolova, 2025). The power asymmetries and aggressive demands made by Russia, particularly since the February 2022 full-scale invasion, closely parallel psychological manipulation and compliance dynamics observed between workplace bullies and their targets (Kuznetsova, 2023). The predominant influence Russia exerts over the conflict’s continuation or cessation reflects power asymmetries akin to those in workplace bullying, where aggressors manipulate and coerce compliance, forcing targets into compromising positions (Kuznetsova, 2023).

As of September 2025, Russia, having unilaterally initiated the war in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, retains decisive power to end the conflict but chooses to prolong it by adhering to maximalist, uncompromising demands. These include Ukraine’s relinquishment of significant territorial control and political autonomy, demands that fundamentally erode Ukrainian sovereignty (Council on Foreign Relations, 2025; International Crisis Group, 2025; Institute for the Study of War, 2025). Similarly, workplace bullies, particularly those in positions of authority, unilaterally initiate harmful behaviors and hold the power to stop, but instead demand total capitulation from their targets through resignation, silence, or compliance (Escartín et al., 2011; Salin, 2021; Perekhoda, 2025). Targets, particularly when facing hierarchical bullies such as supervisors, have virtually no leverage and face insurmountable challenges. They may either fight, often at tremendous emotional and professional cost, or leave entirely, an option that feels like organizational exile (Benson, 2003). The parallel underscores a striking truth: where power is unequally distributed, those with diminished power find themselves unable to negotiate from a position of leverage, whether in war or in workplace bullying (Tepper, 2000).

The war metaphor research by Tracy et al. importantly clarifies why many targets report feelings of relentless siege, hypervigilance, and overwhelming stress, paralleling trauma responses documented in survivors of armed conflict. Descriptions such as “constant battle” and “being under attack” emphasize the survivalist, combative state endured by many bullying victims (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006).

Ultimately, both war and bullying reflect a fundamental struggle over control, identity, and survival. Warfare revolves around territoriality and dominance; similarly, bullying stems from the aggressor’s drive for control over others within the social or organizational environment (Einarsen et al., 2018). Narcissistic and antisocial traits, frequently observed in destructive wartime leadership, also manifest in bullying behaviors, fueled by envy, shame, and profound psychological emptiness (Stiefenhofer et al., 2025; Yıldırım & Yıldırım, 2022).

The Futility of “Peace Talks” Without Enforcement Mechanisms

Peace negotiations traditionally begin with framework agreements and enforceable sanctions against further aggression. In Ukraine, experts note that without automatic punishment for renewed violations, a peace call is merely an appeal for the oppressed to accept territorial losses (Perekhoda, 2023). The same logic applies in workplaces where management or HR pursues surface-level resolutions, prioritizing minimizing exposure and reputational risk over victim protection (Salin & Hoel, 2023). Without binding enforcement, policies that impose automatic consequences for repeat misconduct, such actions resemble diplomatic appeasement, reinforcing the aggressor’s impunity (Zapf & Gross, 2001).

Furthermore, there is danger in conflict avoidance. Avoidance breeds toxic environments where bullying behaviors fester unchecked, just as failed or absent peace talks allow violent hostilities to persist in war zones (Salin, 2021; Einarsen et al., 2018). The minimization or denial of bullying complaints by those in power echoes political or institutional dismissals of legitimate grievances in warfare, perpetuating cycles of harm (Björkqvist et al., 1994). Strategies aimed at preserving superficial workplace harmony often silence truth and accountability, which enables continued psychological damage and relational trauma (Salin & Hoel, 2023).

Psychological and Neurobiological Trauma: The "Anatomy of Harm"

Both warfare and workplace bullying inflict deep psychological trauma that disrupts brain function and somatic regulation. A traumatic experience can be defined as one that is "too much, too fast, too soon," where the individual has no choice about entering or escaping, and there is a lack of compassionate support post-encounter (Hecker, 2014; van der Kolk, 2014). In workplace bullying, the target is unilaterally singled out by the bully, stripped of agency and control, much like a civilian who finds themselves caught in the sudden crossfire of violent conflict, powerless to escape or prevent the harm. The trauma is compounded by an absence of compassionate support following the event, leaving the individual isolated and exposed (Chenevert et al., 2022).

When such trauma is inflicted repeatedly—whether through the violence of war or systematic workplace abuse—the result can be chronic stress responses: heightened anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), insomnia, flashbacks, physical illness, and severe nervous system dysregulation (Chenevert et al., 2022; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004). Research consistently demonstrates that workplace bullying can generate pervasive PTSD-like symptoms, including re-experiencing the trauma, avoidance and emotional numbness, and hyperarousal or heightened reactiveness (Chenevert et al., 2022; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004).

The concept of betrayal trauma is particularly salient in workplace bullying, where harm comes from trusted individuals or supervisors (Freyd, 1996; Freyd et al., 2007). This magnifies the victim’s helplessness: just as betrayal by allies in war deepens the injury, so too does betrayal by workplace allies intensify the victim’s psychological suffering, perpetuating cycles of trauma and injury (Freyd et al., 2007; van der Kolk, 2014).

Toward Resolution: Lessons from Peacebuilding to Workplace Intervention

Effective peace agreements rest on foundations of honest communication, addressing underlying grievances, mutual respect, and enforceable commitments to reparations (Björkqvist et al., 1994; Perekhoda, 2023). These core principles translate directly to successful workplace bullying interventions. Organizations must cultivate proactive cultures that emphasize conflict competence, emotional intelligence, and early intervention to prevent bullying escalation (Salin & Hoel, 2023; Einarsen et al., 2018).

Just as enduring peace treaties require ongoing accountability and vigilance, workplace healing demands dismantling laissez-faire leadership styles that foster ambiguity and enable abuse. Instead, organizations need active leadership committed to psychological safety, respectful conduct, and clear behavioral standards for all members (Stiefenhofer et al., 2025; Yıldırım & Yıldırım, 2022).

War does not end through moral appeals alone, but through enforced accountability under international law. Similarly, bullying will not be overcome by workshops or appeals to empathy alone. Effective interventions require embedding robust accountability structures within organizational frameworks, including:

• Enforceable anti-bullying policies with automatic consequences for violations (Zapf & Gross, 2001).

• Independent and impartial investigation processes that remove HR complicity or minimize complaints (Salin & Hoel, 2023).

• Systematic training to cultivate conflict competence and emotional regulation across leadership levels (Einarsen et al., 2018).

• A cultural “demilitarization” that replaces patriarchal dominance with relational values such as mutual care, perspective-taking, and equality (Lerner, 1986; Woodman, 1985).

By applying these peacebuilding lessons, workplaces move beyond superficial fixes to create environments of genuine safety, accountability, and relational well-being.

Photo by Pascal van de Vendel via Unsplash.

Conclusion

The analogy between warfare and workplace bullying offers a robust lens for understanding ongoing professional conflicts. Conceptualizing bullying as a form of "everyday war," grounded in rich empirical research on target narratives, reveals the profound struggles over power, identity, and survival that victims endure. This framing challenges organizations to move beyond superficial remedies toward meaningful cultural transformation. Unchecked aggression, conflict avoidance, destructive leadership, and unaddressed trauma perpetuate harm cycles. By embracing the warfare metaphor and integrating lessons from peacebuilding and trauma-informed interventions, organizations can foster healing, accountability, and genuinely respectful workplaces. Transformative, peacebuilding-centered approaches are critical for healing and fostering healthy, respectful workplaces.

References:

Benson, J. (2003). Working more, working differently: Changing patterns of workplace bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 24(6), 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720310499340

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:3<173::AID-AB2480200304>3.0.CO;2-U

Chenevert, M., Vignoli, M., Conway, P. M., & Balducci, C. (2022). Workplace bullying and post-traumatic stress disorder symptomology: The influence of role conflict and the moderating effects of neuroticism and managerial competencies. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(17), 10646. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710646

Clement, G., & Haan, N. (2023). Gender and power dynamics in the Russia-Ukraine war: A critical analysis of militarized aggression and resilience. Journal of Conflict Studies, Advance online publication.

Council on Foreign Relations. (2025). War in Ukraine: Global conflict tracker. Retrieved September 16, 2025, from https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2018). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed.). CRC Press.

Escartín, J., Salin, D., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á. (2011). Conceptualizations of workplace bullying: Gendered perceptions and responses. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594321003747694

Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press.

Freyd, J. J., DePrince, A. P., & Gleaves, D. H. (2007). The state of betrayal trauma theory: Reply to Brown, Schechter, and London (2007). Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 8(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J229v08n01_02

Hecker, K (2014). Too much, too fast, too soon. Master's Thesis. Holistic Counseling SIAF.

Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Violence at work in research and practice. In: H. Leymann & A. B. H. Z. J. McAndrew (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 35–54). Taylor & Francis.

International Crisis Group. (2025). Ukraine conflict analysis. Retrieved September 16, 2025, from https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine

Institute for the Study of War. (2025). Russian offensive campaign assessment. Retrieved September 16, 2025, from https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-3-2025/

Ivanov, A., & Sokolova, M. (2025). Organizational trauma and leadership during the Ukraine conflict: Lessons on authority abuse and subordination. European Journal of Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 55-74. Advance online publication

Kuznetsova, T. (2023). Power asymmetry in conflict zones: Comparing geopolitical aggression and workplace bullying. International Journal of Conflict Management, 34(2), 112-130. Advance online publication

Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy. Oxford University Press.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace bullying in the U.S. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318907313717

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001723554

Petrenko, I. (2024). Psychological impact of prolonged conflict on civilian populations: Insights relevant to organizational abuse patterns. Journal of Trauma and Stress Studies, 38(3), 200-218. Advance online publication

Perekhoda, H. (2025). Perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine war and feminist discourse. In Fischer, E. (Ed.), Conversations on peace and power. Unpublished manuscript.

Salin, D. (2021). The prevention of workplace bullying: Toward a multilevel intervention model. Human Resource Management, 60(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22063

Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2023). Organizational responses to workplace bullying: The role of policies, procedures, and intervention strategies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(4), 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1774222

Stiefenhofer, A., et al. (2025). Narcissistic leadership and the dynamics of workplace abuse. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 40(2), 221–245.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 148–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906291980

van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

Woodman, M. (1985). The pregnant virgin: A process of psychological transformation. Inner City Books.

Yıldırım, A., & Yıldırım, D. (2022). Workplace bullying among healthcare professionals: Prevalence and consequences. Workplace Health & Safety, 70(5), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799211057776

Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000810