Workplace Bullying Interventions: Effectiveness and Challenges
Workplace bullying remains a persistent and damaging issue with significant consequences for individuals and organizations. As research has advanced, so has the exploration of interventions designed to reduce its prevalence and impact. This article synthesizes recent empirical and meta-analytical evidence from international studies, highlighting key intervention strategies, their effectiveness, and recommendations for future research and practice. In addition, it addresses the unique challenge posed by narcissistic and Dark Triad bosses—a topic that has received increasing attention in the literature.
Interventions and Their Effectiveness
Intervention research on workplace bullying has evolved from primarily descriptive studies to a more robust body of experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined a range of strategies, including cognitive rehearsal programs, educational workshops, supervisor training, organizational policy changes, and bystander-focused interventions (Escartín, 2016; Gillen et al., 2017; Jeon & Kim, 2024; Seppälä et al., 2023; Einarsen et al., 2020).
Cognitive Rehearsal Programs
Cognitive rehearsal programs, widely studied and applied within healthcare environments, integrate educational instruction with practical role-playing exercises to equip employees with the skills needed to identify and effectively address bullying and incivility in the workplace. The process typically begins with didactic instruction, where participants learn to identify unprofessional behaviors such as threatening language, constant unreasonable criticism, and deliberate undermining, and to understand the consequences of such behaviors for both individuals and the organization (Griffin, 2004; American Nurse, 2017). For example, in Griffin’s (2004) seminal study, new nurses participated in a session where they were taught to recognize the ten most common forms of lateral violence (a type of bullying among peers). They then engaged in role-play scenarios to practice assertive responses, such as calmly addressing a colleague who repeatedly interrupts or belittles them during meetings. The goal is to equip employees with knowledge and practical skills to address bullying while preserving professional relationships and dignity (Griffin & Clark, 2014; Kang et al., 2017).
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found that cognitive rehearsal programs increase awareness of bullying, enhance participants’ confidence in confronting incivility, and can lead to a reduction in turnover intention among nurses (Jeon & Kim, 2024; O’Connell et al., 2019). For instance, a meta-analysis of nine studies involving hospital nurses found that programs ranging from one to 20 sessions, including education, scripted responses, and role-play, resulted in improved ability to address bullying and, in some cases, reduced bullying prevalence (Jeon & Kim, 2024). However, the evidence is mixed regarding long-term behavioral change, and some studies noted only modest or temporary improvements in actual bullying rates. The quality of evidence is often limited by small sample sizes and short follow-up periods, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the sustainability of these effects (Jeon & Kim, 2024).
Organizational Culture Initiatives
Organizational culture initiatives, such as the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workforce (CREW) program, aim to foster a respectful and inclusive workplace environment through a combination of training, policy development, and the establishment of committees to address bullying (Gillen et al., 2017). CREW, for example, involves structured training sessions for all staff, the creation of civility committees, and the implementation of policies that promote respectful communication and behavior. The program encourages open dialogue about workplace norms and provides mechanisms for reporting and addressing uncivil or bullying behaviors.
Research has shown that such initiatives can modestly increase workplace civility and reduce absenteeism. For instance, a systematic review found that the CREW intervention led to a small but significant increase in civility, a decrease in supervisor incivility, and absentee days from work (Gillen et al., 2017). However, the impact on actual bullying victimization or perpetration was less clear, with some studies reporting no significant change in the prevalence of bullying. The evidence for these interventions is generally of low quality, with many studies suffering from methodological limitations such as lack of control groups and short follow-up periods (Gillen et al., 2017).
Supervisor and Employee Training
Supervisor and employee training programs are designed to educate staff at all levels about the nature, consequences, and prevention of workplace bullying. These programs typically cover definitions of bullying, strategies for recognizing and responding to bullying behaviors, de-escalation techniques, and actions to take when bullying is reported (American Society of Safety Professionals, 2020; J.J. Keller, 2020). For example, a comprehensive training program might include a DVD-based curriculum for supervisors and employees, with separate modules addressing unique roles and responsibilities of each group. Supervisors learn how to recognize potential bullying situations, address bullies or potentially violent employees, and support victims, while employees are taught how to prevent bullying, report incidents, and support colleagues who may be affected.
Studies have demonstrated that such training improves awareness and attitudes toward bullying and can increase the likelihood that employees will report incidents or intervene as bystanders (Gillen et al., 2017; American Society of Safety Professionals, 2020). However, the evidence for direct reductions in bullying behaviors is mixed. Some studies have found no significant difference in bullying victimization or perpetration following training, highlighting the need for ongoing support and reinforcement of training messages (Gillen et al., 2017).
Bystander-Focused Interventions
Some studies, such as the Norwegian cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT; Einarsen et al., 2020), focus on interventions that encourage bystanders to act before bullying escalates, representing a form of early or preventive intervention. This large-scale study uses a cluster RCT design to evaluate an organization-wide program aimed at reducing workplace bullying by promoting active and constructive bystander behavior. While the intervention is implemented at a specific time point with follow-up assessments, the timing of the intervention itself is not experimentally manipulated or compared across groups. Instead, the study measures changes in bystander awareness, self-efficacy, and helping behavior, as well as the prevalence of bullying and harassment over time. This approach highlights the potential for bystander-focused strategies to contribute to bullying prevention, but does not provide direct evidence on the optimal timing of interventions.
Change Management Strategies
Workplace change, such as organizational restructuring or policy reform, can create uncertainty and stress, which may increase the risk of bullying and harassment (Kleizen et al., 2021). Effective change management strategies aim to mitigate these risks by ensuring transparent communication, involving employees in the change process, and providing support during transitions. For example, in a large study of the Australian civil service, researchers found that workplace change was associated with increased levels of bullying and harassment, but that satisfaction with change management significantly reduced this effect (Kleizen et al., 2021). In this context, change management included clear communication about the reasons for change, opportunities for employee input, and support for those affected by the transition.
The study demonstrated that when employees perceived change management as fair and supportive, the negative impact of workplace change on bullying and harassment was mitigated. This underscores the importance of integrating bullying prevention into broader organizational change strategies and ensuring that employees feel heard and supported during periods of transition (Kleizen et al., 2021).
Targeting Narcissistic or Dark Triad Bosses
While most workplace bullying interventions focus on general populations, there is growing recognition of the unique challenges posed by leaders with narcissistic or Dark Triad traits (Tóth-Király et al., 2019; Yıldırım & Yıldırım, 2022). Empirical studies have shown that bullies in the workplace are more likely to exhibit high levels of subclinical narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Tóth-Király et al., 2019). However, direct evaluations of interventions specifically targeting these individuals are limited.
Recent theoretical work has proposed strategies to mitigate the influence of narcissistic bosses. Stiefenhofer et al. (2025) use a game-theoretic framework to model interactions between employees and narcissistic leaders, suggesting that victims should consistently signal their willingness to report bullying and escalate the situation rather than tolerate abusive behavior. The authors recommend organizational controls such as structured, transparent processes, peer reviews, anonymous feedback, and 360-degree assessments to limit the autonomy and manipulative tendencies of narcissistic bosses. Promoting team-based recognition and rotating leadership roles can also reduce hierarchical power imbalances and discourage self-serving behaviors (Stiefenhofer et al., 2025).
Empirical research on leader narcissism and abusive supervision has further clarified the dynamics at play. Schütz and colleagues (2022) found that narcissistic rivalry—a key dimension of narcissism—was strongly associated with abusive supervision intentions, regardless of how followers behaved. This suggests that once leaders with high narcissistic rivalry are in place, interventions must focus on organizational structures and accountability mechanisms rather than expecting behavioral change from the leaders themselves. Organizations should adapt selection and promotion processes to screen for narcissistic traits and prioritize desirable leader traits such as integrity and empathy (Schütz et al., 2022). When narcissistic leaders are already in position, explicit sanctioning of destructive leadership and endorsement of supportive leadership can help mitigate their negative impact (Schütz et al., 2022; Grapsas et al., 2019).
Key Gaps in Intervention Research
Currently, there is no empirical research specifically addressing the timing of workplace bullying interventions or the systematic testing of perpetrator accountability mechanisms. The literature frequently emphasizes the importance of early intervention to prevent escalation and psychological harm, but this is based on theoretical and observational evidence rather than rigorous experimental testing of timing. Most intervention studies do not explicitly compare early vs. late or proactive vs. reactive timing, and typically implement interventions at a single point or over a period, measuring outcomes at follow-up without varying timing as an independent variable.
With respect to perpetrator accountability, there is a notable lack of large-scale, empirical studies that systematically test the effectiveness of explicit perpetrator accountability mechanisms (such as disciplinary action, mandatory training, or public sanctions) in reducing workplace bullying. The evidence remains largely theoretical or anecdotal. Reviews such as those by Escartín (2016) and Gillen et al. (2017) highlight that most intervention studies focus on training, awareness, and organizational policy, but not on direct perpetrator accountability or sanctions.
Photo by Rod Long @rodlong via Unsplash.
Trust, Psychological Safety, and Ongoing Evaluation
A critical component of effective interventions is fostering trust and psychological safety within the workplace. When employees feel safe to speak up, report bullying, and seek support, interventions are more likely to succeed (Escartín, 2016; Gillen et al., 2017). Organizations should prioritize open communication, ensure confidentiality, and provide resources for counseling and conflict resolution. Therapeutic perspectives, such as trauma-informed approaches, can further support victims and bystanders in healing and resilience (Escartín, 2016).
Ongoing, systematic evaluation is essential to assess the effectiveness of interventions and identify areas for improvement. Organizations should adopt established models such as Kirkpatrick’s framework to evaluate reaction, learning, behavior, and results at all levels (individual, team, organizational). Regular, transparent assessment ensures that interventions remain relevant and impactful (Escartín, 2016; Gillen et al., 2017).
Summary of Research Findings and Outlook
Overall, the evidence suggests that workplace bullying interventions can lead to positive changes in knowledge, attitudes, and self-perceptions, but their impact on actual bullying behaviors is more variable (Escartín, 2016; Gillen et al., 2017). Cognitive rehearsal programs, particularly in healthcare, have demonstrated significant reductions in bullying, while educational workshops and supervisor training have shown promise in improving workplace climate and reducing distress. Organizational-level interventions, such as CREW, have had modest effects on civility and absenteeism but less clear impacts on bullying prevalence.
A particularly challenging scenario arises when workplace bullying is driven or reinforced by leaders with narcissistic or Dark Triad traits. Empirical research has shown that bullies in the workplace are more likely to exhibit high levels of subclinical narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Tóth-Király et al., 2019; Yıldırım & Yıldırım, 2022). While most interventions focus on general populations, there is growing recognition of the need for strategies tailored to these high-risk groups. Recent theoretical work suggests that organizational controls such as structured, transparent processes, peer reviews, anonymous feedback, and 360-degree assessments can limit the autonomy and manipulative tendencies of narcissistic or Dark Triad bosses (Stiefenhofer et al., 2025; Prusik & Szulawski, 2019; Spurk et al., 2015). Promoting team-based recognition and rotating leadership roles can also reduce hierarchical power imbalances and discourage self-serving behaviors (Stiefenhofer et al., 2025).
Despite these encouraging results, methodological challenges remain. Many studies suffer from small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and short follow-up periods, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions (Escartín, 2016; Gillen et al., 2017). The Hawthorne effect—where participants change their behavior simply because they are being studied—may bias results. Furthermore, interventions are often implemented in diverse organizational and cultural contexts, making it difficult to generalize findings (Escartín, 2016; Seppälä et al., 2023).
Recommendations
Looking ahead, there is a clear need for more rigorous, large-scale studies with robust evaluation designs. Future research should prioritize randomized controlled trials, long-term follow-up, and standardized outcome measures to facilitate cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses (Escartín, 2016; Gillen et al., 2017). Collaboration between researchers and practitioners is essential to ensure that interventions are both evidence-based and tailored to the specific needs of organizations.
Interventions should be comprehensive, addressing individual, team, and organizational factors, and should be integrated into broader strategies for improving workplace health and safety (Escartín, 2016; Seppälä et al., 2023). Training should be ongoing, and organizational policies should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect best practices. When addressing narcissistic or Dark Triad bosses, organizations should implement structured accountability measures, foster psychological safety, and encourage transparent reporting and conflict resolution (Stiefenhofer et al., 2025; Prusik & Szulawski, 2019; Spurk et al., 2015). Finally, the evaluation of interventions should be systematic and transparent, using established models such as Kirkpatrick’s framework to assess reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Escartín, 2016).
In conclusion, while workplace bullying remains a complex and challenging issue, recent research provides grounds for optimism. Evidence-based interventions, particularly those that are comprehensive, integrated, and supported by leadership, can make a meaningful difference in reducing bullying and its consequences. Continued investment in research and practice is needed to build on these findings and create safer, healthier workplaces for all.
References:
American Society of Safety Professionals. (2020). Workplace bullying and violence for supervisors and employees. https://www.jjkeller.com/shop/workplace-bullying-and-violence-training-for-supervisors-and-employees-dvd-training
Einarsen, K., Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Olsen, O. K., Zahlquist, L., Mikkelsen, E. G., Koløen, J., & Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Outcomes of a proximal workplace intervention against workplace bullying and harassment: A protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial among Norwegian industrial workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02013
Escartín, J. (2016). Insights into workplace bullying: Psychosocial drivers and effective interventions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S91211
Gillen, P. A., Sinclair, M., Kernohan, W. G., Begley, C. M., & Luyben, A. G. (2017). Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD009778. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009778.pub2
Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2019). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 839–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863731
Griffin, M. (2004). Teaching cognitive rehearsal as a shield for lateral violence: An intervention for newly licensed nurses. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 35(6), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20041101-07
Griffin, M., & Clark, C. M. (2014). Revisiting cognitive rehearsal as an intervention against incivility and lateral violence in nursing: 10 years later. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 45(12), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20141122-01
Jeon, J. H., & Kim, J. S. (2024). Effectiveness of cognitive rehearsal programs for the prevention of workplace bullying among hospital nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nursing, 23(1), 411. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01941-7
Kang, J., Jeong, Y. J., & Kong, K. R. (2017). Effects of cognitive rehearsal program on interpersonal relationships, workplace bullying, symptom experience, and turnover intention among nurses: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 47(5), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2017.47.5.689
Kleizen, B., Wynen, J., Boon, J., & de Roover, J. (2021). Bullying and harassment as a consequence of workplace change in the Australian civil service: Investigating the mediating role of satisfaction with change management. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211036732
O’Connell, K. M., Kowalski, R. L., & McComas, W. G. (2019). The effect of cognitive rehearsal training on workplace bullying among nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 49(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000713
Prusik, M., & Szulawski, M. (2019). The relationship between the Dark Triad personality traits, motivation at work, and counterproductive work behavior moderated by autonomy. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.008
Schütz, A., & Schütz, M. (2022). How to deal with a difficult boss: The roles of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry and followers’ behavior in abusive supervision intentions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000503
Seppälä, P., Olin, N., Kalavainen, S., Clottes Heikkilä, H., Kivimäki, M., Remes, J., & Ervasti, J. (2023). Effectiveness of a workshop-based intervention to reduce bullying and violence at work: A 2-year quasi-experimental intervention study. Social Science & Medicine, 338, 116318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116318
Spurk, D., Keller, A. C., & Hirschi, A. (2015). Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind? Relationships of the Dark Triad and counterproductive work behaviors to career success. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00144
Stiefenhofer, P., Deniz, C., Xie, L., & Qian, J. (2025). My boss is a narcissist bully: A game theoretic approach to stop bullies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14262. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14262
Tóth-Király, I., Morin, A. J. S., Bőthe, B., Orosz, G., & Rigó, A. (2019). Workplace bullies, not their victims, score high on the Dark Triad and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.009
Yıldırım, D., & Yıldırım, A. (2022). Pathological narcissism, interpersonal cognitive distortions, and workplace bullying among nurses: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(6), 1855–1864. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13706
