Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Workplace harassment has garnered increasing scholarly attention in recent years. Several aspects of this phenomenon have been explored in depth, such as prevalence, predisposing factors, antecedents, consequences and prevention methods. However, limited research has examined the resolution processes undertaken by key stakeholders following incidents of workplace bullying (WB).

Objectives

This scoping review aims to map out the key steps and potential interventions following a report of workplace harassment, and thus provide recommendations. Specifically, the roles of the presumed victim, the organization's representative, and the practitioner will be defined and presented for each step of the process and each intervention, considering the needs of all stakeholders.

Method

This scoping review analyzed peer-reviewed articles published from January to December 2024 (25 years). The analysis focused on methods employed to resolve the situation, the outcomes (when available), the procedural stages, and the roles of the main stakeholders.

Results

The results indicate that mediation and filing a complaint are the most used interventions, while seeking support from the organization and separating the victim and the perpetrator are the most used strategies. The review identifies five procedural stages: Reporting the bullying, Fact Finding, and Choosing, Implementing and Evaluating the method. Finally, both internal and external stakeholders should be involved from the beginning of the process.

Conclusions

We propose a five-stage framework that articulates the roles of key stakeholders. This process, while not necessarily linear, outlines the steps taken by internal and external stakeholders.

Keywords

workplace violence industrial psychology program evaluation stakeholders participation scoping review resolution process

Introduction

Workplace bullying (WB), also referred to as workplace harassment, is prevalent across organizations and has garnered increasing scholarly interest in recent years.^1–3 Workplace bullying is considered a worldwide issue since it is present in many different workplaces and domains and is reported worldwide.⁴ The prevalence rate varies from 1% to 47% of employees in Europe⁵ and from 3.9% to 24%⁴ in Australia and New Zealand. In North America, 19% of US employees self-reported experiencing bullying,⁶ and nearly 1 in 5 (19%) women and almost 1 in 8 (13%) men working in Canada reported being victims of workplace harassment.⁷ Workplace bullying has been reported in a variety of sectors, for example, by healthcare professionals,⁸ university employees,⁹ employees in education,¹⁰ and public sector employees.¹¹

Despite its global prevalence,⁴ few studies have assessed the effectiveness of interventions post-incident.¹² Existing research has largely focused on classifying and identifying the types of interventions used by various organizations.¹³ While various studies and government agencies have suggested interventions and protocols to deal with WB, there is still a lack of knowledge on how to properly handle a case of WB in organizations.² This study aims to address this need by proposing a framework in the form of a process with the currently available literature. The proposed framework not only integrates current best practices but also serves as a practical tool for key stakeholders tasked with addressing WB in organizational settings.

Concept of workplace bullying

Although multiple definitions of workplace bullying (WB) exist, the literature generally favours a broad definition: workplace bullying refers to one or more negative acts or comments that are persistent over time and directed at a member of an organization.¹ In their recent policy on harassment prevention and resolution, the Treasury Board of Canada¹⁴ rephrased the above definition by highlighting the notion of impact: workplace harassment is any action or comment that has a negative impact and is directed towards another individual in the workplace. This inappropriate conduct can “demean, belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment (p. 4)” to an individual and may also include threats and intimidation. As this definition is still broad and can include a variety of behaviours, a classification has been suggested to disentangle this concept.¹⁵

Workplace bullying can be conceptualized into three categories based on the behaviours exhibited by the aggressor: work-related, personal bullying, and physical violence.¹⁵ Work-related bullying includes all negative behaviours related to the victim's work (work overload, refusing leave, controlling resources, blocking promotion, etc.), while personal bullying refers to direct and indirect negative behaviours attacking the person, such as spreading gossip, ignoring the person, verbal attacks, persistent criticisms, or negative eye contact. Physical bullying or threatening refers to all physical violence or threats a victim may encounter. Finally, WB can also be classified according to the title and position held by the victim and aggressor. The two most frequent types of bullying are “top-to-bottom” bullying and “horizontal” or “vertical” bullying.¹⁶ Top-to-bottom bullying, also called ascending bullying, occurs when a manager bullies their subordinate. Horizontal bullying (also called vertical bullying) occurs when colleagues bully one another. Recent studies have begun to focus more closely on “bottom-up” bullying, which occurs when a subordinate bullies their manager.¹⁷ This widespread issue has been shown to have many negative multi-level impacts.¹⁵ The existing classifications each address distinct aspects of harassment, rendering them complementary. However, this diversity also highlights the pressing need for a unified definition that integrates multiple dimensions simultaneously. These definitions also leave out some aspects, like the roles of the different stakeholders involved in these situations, which would be helpful to provide guidelines for the sequence of a resolution. To illustrate the disparities between the definitions and the aspects they take into account, it is noteworthy that many articles do not use this labelling and do not categorize WB.^18,19 Therefore, this manuscript seeks to advance the formulation of a global definition by breaking down the process of resolving these situations and addressing the roles of the various stakeholders.

Impacts of workplace bullying

Workplace bullying (WB) has adverse consequences not only for individual victims but also for organizations and society at large. In particular, multiple literature reviews indicated that personal impacts for the victim included work-related consequences (e.g., higher absenteeism, lower performance), physical health consequences (e.g., increase in stress, cardiovascular disease), psychological consequences (e.g., suicide, depression) and affective consequences (e.g., fear, lower self-esteem).^15,20,21 Organizational impacts can be associated with productivity (e.g., decreased performance, missed deadlines), costs (e.g., health plan increase, increase in turnover), work culture (e.g., negative climate, ineffective relationships), legal aspects (e.g., wrongful discharge lawsuits) and reputation (e.g., the way the customer will see the company).^15,22 Societal impacts also include higher costs related to health care and medical treatment, sick pay, welfare, retirement, and the criminal justice system, as well as a loss of productivity.²² Considering the negative impacts associated with all of these types of WB, it is not surprising that extensive research has been conducted on its prevention and potential interventions.^12,13,23 However, no studies have yet focused on identifying and understanding the steps that could decrease these negative impacts.

Prevention and intervention

Prevention techniques generally include the creation and implementation of a policy on harassment and bullying, as well as classes given to employees and employers.²⁴ Prevention techniques aim to prevent bullying before it even happens. Conversely, intervention techniques usually occur after the bullying has happened and aim to resolve the issue. A range of interventions can be utilized by consultants addressing WB cases, including coaching, mediation, conflict moderation, formal investigations, and organizational development initiatives.^13,25,26 The authors, however, note that a multi-level approach is necessary when resolving WB cases. In parallel, counselling, restorative justice, and punitive measures are identified as potential interventions.²³ Depending on the intervention retained, human resources management or an external consultant, as well as the victim, may have a role to play.²⁷ Accordingly, a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of involved stakeholders is essential to facilitate communication and collaboration during the resolution process.

The present study

Extensive research has examined the impacts,^15,28–30 characteristics,¹ and predictors of workplace bullying (WB) at both personal and organizational levels.³¹ However, to our knowledge, no study has yet mapped out the process taken by the different stakeholders (e.g., managers, victims, resolution practitioners) when WB occurs. Only two processes were recently documented, but without investigating the roles of the different stakeholders. The Government of Canada proposed one which is intended to be used by managers, advisors, or practitioners trying to resolve the issue. Additionally, a process based on key points for the resolution of workplace bullying situations has also been proposed.³² Those points were identified through interviews with victims of bullying. However, both processes do not inform participants about all available interventions that can be put in place to resolve the harassment situation. Considering that interventions for WB are seldom effective,³² it is essential to delineate the necessary process (and steps) for prompt action to prevent its negative impacts. Without such measures, employees will continue to experience its detrimental effects.

Consequently, the objective of this scoping review is to map out the process – key steps and potential interventions – following a report of workplace harassment, including the roles of stakeholders involved in the process, and thus provide recommendations. Specifically, the roles of the presumed victim, the organization's representative (i.e., manager), and the practitioner (working internally or externally) will be defined and presented for each step of the process, as well as for each of the proposed interventions, considering the needs of all stakeholders. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following questions: (1) What steps are to be taken by the various stakeholders after a harassment situation occurs? (2) What are the roles of the various stakeholders in each step of the process? (3) What interventions can be proposed to resolve the harassment situation?

This study will contribute to the scientific literature by proposing the first process for the resolution of WB that maps the roles of different stakeholders (e.g., managers, victims, resolution practitioners) based on the results of a scoping review. The aim is to lay the foundation of a first model that will be tested and adjusted following the results of new studies building the theoretical framework and implementing the model. The overall goal is to develop a universal process (including steps) for dealing with WB in the workplace.

Method

Given the limited number of studies specifically addressing the processes following a report of WB and the disparity in the methods used by each professional, a synthesis of knowledge is needed. This scoping review, which took into consideration peer-reviewed articles published from January 2000 to December 2024 (25 years), was conducted to map out the steps taken by the different stakeholders and to document the effective interventions following the report of a WB case. The choice of doing a scoping study has been guided by its description, which is to synthesize current knowledge, guide future research, and promote data-driven best practices.³³ In addition, the goal of a scoping review is to present what is known on a specific subject and not to answer a question in a synthesized and critical way.³⁴ This is consistent with this review, which aims to determine what is known about the process and the steps required to successfully resolve a case of bullying at work, considering various stakeholders, with a focus on key steps taken for intervention on bullying and, when possible, the outcomes of these interventions. On the contrary, a systematic literature review will usually answer questions about the effectiveness of specific interventions, need a specific delimited question to answer and rigid a priori.³⁵ The state of steps to resolve WB situations is not advanced enough to use such a methodology, and goes beyond the scope of this study. Other studies with similar objectives also used a scoping study, but one to cover the return to work of employees on sick leave³⁶ and the other on the disclosure of the impacts of mental health conditions.³⁷

This scoping review followed the methodology outlined by Mazaniello-Chézol and Corbière,³⁸ which is based on the ones by Arksey et al.,³⁹ Levac et al.,⁴⁰ and Peters et al..³³ Specifically, it follows four main steps to effectively and rigorously conduct a scoping review: (1) conceptualization of the scoping review; (2) implementation of the research strategy; (3) execution of the review; and (4) dissemination of the results and findings. The following sections indicate how these four steps and their subsets have been followed and applied to this study.

Conceptualisation of the scoping review

The first phase is particularly important since it is the one that determines the relevance of completing a research study.³⁸ During this phase, a review of the literature on the subject was completed. Based on the findings of this review, the research question and study goals were chosen and agreed upon.

A detailed research protocol was then developed, outlining the study's rationale and methodological approach. Based on the recommendation of a librarian, a search in four databases was to be conducted (APA PsychInfo, CINHAL, PubMed, and Scopus) for articles published in a period of 25 years (January 2000 to December 2024). Only articles published in English and French were included. Finally, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles were retained to maximize the data collection.

Implementation of the research strategy

During the second phase, two steps were followed: a meeting with a specialist librarian in the social sciences field and an electronic database search. During the meeting with the specialist librarian, the identified databases were validated (APA Psychinfo, CINHAL, Pubmed, and Scopus). The databases were chosen based on the librarian's recommendation and the authors’ expertise, as WB articles are mostly published in medical, social science and business journals. A list of relevant keywords was then determined, and the syntax for the different databases was used. A search of all relevant information on the topic was then conducted to assess the number of relevant publications on the topic and to validate the research question. Finally, the electronic database search was launched using the syntax: (“workplace bullying” OR “workplace harassment”) AND (resolution OR intervention OR “conflict management” OR “conflict resolution”).

Process of the review

The PRISMA ScR Guidelines were followed to carry out the review.⁴¹ The initial database search yielded 1575 articles using this syntax. After the removal of duplicates, 970 unique records remained for screening. Specifically, the following inclusion criteria were applied while reading the title and abstract of the articles: (1) date of publication (between January 2000 and December 2024); (2) languages (English and French); (3) interventions or steps taken following WB (any interventions or steps taken by stakeholders following WB); (4) stakeholder's role (roles of the stakeholders in the intervention); and (5) study design (qualitative, quantitative and mixed).

For the eligibility phase, the 87 articles that met these criteria were then read entirely, and the same inclusion criteria were applied. While the outcomes of the studies were analyzed when present, this was not considered an exclusion criterion. Considering that this study aimed to identify steps and interventions after WB occurred, articles focused on identifying the impacts of WB, in terms of prevention and prediction, were excluded. Finally, the 24 articles selected were presented to the co-authors for their approval. The number of articles screened and retained at each step is reported in the PRISMA chart (see Figure 1), following the recommendation of Mazaniello-Chézol and Corbière³⁸ and the example of Tricco et al.⁴¹

Figure 1.

PRISMA chart.

Data extraction

The pertinent information from each article was organized into a table (Table 1). The first author (KG) completed the first extraction by entering the information into the preestablished chart. This step was reviewed by two co-authors (FC and MC), and the first 8 articles were reviewed by the research team. Since a consensus was achieved with the first 8 articles, the other articles were divided equally between the first author and the three co-authors.

Table 1.

Description of retained articles.

Article and assigned number	Country	Study objective	Type of study	N	Type and nature of harassment
Zapf & Gross (2001)⁴²	Germany	Investigate whether bullying victims use specific conflict management strategies more often than individuals who are not bullied, and whether coping strategies used by successful copers with bullying differ from those of unsuccessful copers.	Mixed	N = 268; n1 (victims of bullying) = 149; n2 (control group) = 81; n3 (semi-structured interview) = 20	Not specified
Mawdsley & Thirlwall (2019)⁴³	United Arab Emirates	Investigate how third-party interventions (TPI) relate to individualisation of the employment contract, whether TPIs deflect attention away from bullying and the impact for targets.	Qualitative	N = 85 union members and officials of three large UK trade unions	Not specified
Nielsen, Indregard, Krane, & Knardahl (2019)⁴⁴	Norway	Determine (1) associations between workplace bullying and subsequent risk and duration of medically certified sickness absence, (2) whether employees’ perceptions of supportive, fair, and empowering leader behavior moderate the association between bullying and absence, and (3) whether prior sickness absence increases the risk of being a new victim of bullying	Quantitative	N (time 1) = 10,691 N (time 2) = 4392 (service workers, sales workers, technicians and associate professionals, and professionals)	Not specified
Catley, Blackwood, Forsyth, Tappin, & Bentley (2017)⁴⁵	New Zealand	Provide a holistic model of the complaint management process to advance the theorising of HRP's role in this important process, and the challenges they face in undertaking it.	Qualitative	N = 56 individual bullying cases	Not specified
Kwan, Tuckey, & Dollard (2016)⁴⁶	Malaysia	Identify the coping strategies used by employees when dealing with workplace bullying and explore the influence of psychosocial safety climate on coping and bullying escalation patterns,	Qualitative	N = 20 administrative support staff, executives, educational employees	Not specified
Thirlwall (2015)⁴⁷	New Zealand	Define the ways in which organisations respond to complaints about workplace bullying in New Zealand.	Qualitative	N = 40 participants; 27 academics, managers, technicians, administrators & 13 HR workers	Not specified.
Saam (2010)¹³	Germany	Explore which intervention strategies are actually applied by consultants who specialize in bullying consultation and, if so, to what purpose they are adopted.	Qualitative	N = 18 external consultants	Not specified
Cicerali & Cicerali (2016)⁴⁸	Sweden	Understand and identify how organizations deal with workplace bullying issues in Sweden	Qualitative	N = 45 HR managers	Not specified.
D’Cruz, Paull, Omari, & Guneri-Cangarli (2016)⁴⁹	Australia, Turkey and India	Explore target experiences of workplace bullying in terms of source, manifestations etiology, outcomes, coping, interventions, and bystander behaviour across Australia, India and Turkey, uncovering cross-cultural convergence and divergence.	Qualitative	N = 114 respondents (57 Australian, 34 Indian, 23 Turkish) business students	Type: top to bottom and bottom-up Nature: psychological, verbal and physical abuse
Harrington, Rayner, & Warren (2012)⁵⁰	England	1) Explore how HRPs interpreted claims of bullying in the context of their ongoing relationships with line managers and employees. 2) Examine the steps HRPs took when responding to claims	Qualitative	N = 17 HR professionals	Not specified
van Heugten (2010)⁵¹	New Zealand	Explore the context and impacts of bullying events, and the factors that were pivotal in the participants’ journeys back to self-confidence. Identify the causes of workplace bullying and appropriate approaches to intervention.	Qualitative	N = 17 social workers	Type: top to bottom and horizontal bullying Nature: all types
Kang, Kim, & Yun (2017)⁵²	South Korea	Investigate the effect of a cognitive rehearsal program on the interpersonal relationships, workplace bullying, symptom experience, and turnover intention of nurses.	Quantitative	N (time 1)= 40 nurses N (time 2) = 19 nurses	Not specified.
Keller, Budin, & Allie (2016)⁵³	USA	Review workplace bullying as experienced by nurses, and describe how nurses developed and implemented a bullying task force to address the problem.	Mixed	N = 707 nurses	Not specified.
Björklund, Hellman, Jensen, Åkerblom, & Björk Brämberg (2019)⁵⁴	Sweden	Describe factors that contribute to the occurrence of workplace bullying, that enable it to continue and the coping strategies managers use when they are bullied.	Qualitative	N = 22 managers	Type: bottom-up Nature: not specified
Kang & Jeong (2019)⁵⁵	South Korea	Develop a smartphone application for cognitive rehearsal intervention for WB and to examine its effects on nurses’ bullying experiences and turnover intention	Quantitative	N = 73 nurses n (intervention group) = 36; n (control group) = 37	Type: not specified Nature: Person-related bullying, work-related bullying and intimidation-related bullying
Salin et al. (2020)⁵⁶	Interviews conducted in 14 different countries (e.g., Argentina, Australia, Austria, China, Finland). First author: Helsinki, Finland	Summarize recommendations on prevention and intervention from the organization's perspective to address the gaps present by interviewing HRPs about their views on the best ways to prevent and manage bullying.	Qualitative	N = 214 HR employees	Not specified
Blackwood, Bentley, & Catley (2018)³²	New Zealand	Provide a holistic understanding of intervention as a process	Qualitative	N = 34 nurses	Type: not specified Nature: psychological and physical abuse
Bryant, Buttigieg, & Hanley (2009)⁵⁷	Australia	Investigate employee reports of workplace bullying in which participants argue that poor management of bullying led to a range of health problems, both physical and mental.	Qualitative	N = 14 employees in manufacturing, retail and hospitality sectors	Type: top to bottom Nature: not specified
Ballard & Easteal (2016)⁵⁸	Australia	Identify which variables affect targets’ of bullying perceptions of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)'s efficacy.	Qualitative	N = 10 bullying targets	Type: not specified Nature: sexual abuse
Skarbek, Johnson, & Dawson (2015)¹⁹	USA	Examine workplace bullying from the perspectives of nurse managers who manage inpatient units in acute care hospital settings	Qualitative	N = 6 nurses	Type: horizontal bullying Nature: not specified.
Harrington, Warren, & Rayner (2015)⁵⁹	United Kingdom	Identify how human resources practitioners interpret and respond to claims of bullying	Qualitative	N = 17 human resources practitioners	Type: top to bottom Nature: not specified.
Fields (2017)⁶⁰	North America, Australia and Europe	Explore how executive coaches help professionals deal with ongoing hostile behaviour and language at work.	Qualitative	N = 10 executive coaches	Not specified.
Jonsson & Muhonen (2022)⁶¹	Sweden	Explore factors that can influence the behavior of bystanders to workplace bullying in the healthcare sector	Qualitative	N = 32 healthcare staff members	Type: Top to bottom and horizontal Nature: psychological abuse
Lally (2024)⁶²	United States	Understand the workplace bullying experiences of women in leadership in publicly traded companies in the United States.	Qualitative	N = 12 women	Type : Horizontal and top to bottom Nature : Not specified

Dissemination of the results and findings

As per the objective of this research, a thematic analysis was applied to identify the type of action taken by the stakeholder (intervention or coping strategy), the steps taken by the stakeholders during the intervention or the process of WB, and the roles of the different stakeholders. When outcomes of the intervention were included in the scientific article, they were analyzed. The following three steps summarize the process taken: (1) extracting findings and coding findings for each article; (2) grouping the results; (3) analyzing the group information to identify similarities and discrepancies in the data.

To begin, the information was organized into two tables to separate coping strategies from interventions. The columns for these two tables were: (1) name of the intervention or coping strategy; (2) description; (3) outcome. Once this step was completed, a third table was created. This table included information about: (1) the stakeholders involved and (2) their role. Finally, a fourth table was created in which the different phases of the intervention were also coded.

Results

Descriptive analysis results

The 24 selected studies were published between 2001 and 2024, with the majority being published between 2015 and 2019. Studies were predominantly conducted in Europe (39.1%; Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland), Australia and New Zealand (30.4%), Asia (17.4%; Turkey, India, South Korea, United Arab Emirates and Malaysia) and the United States (13.0%). Finally, most of the retained studies employed qualitative designs (75.0%, n = 18), while the remainder used quantitative (16.6%, n = 4) or mixed approaches (8.3%, n = 2). Table 1 presents an overview of the 24 articles chosen.

Synthesis analysis

Type of workplace bullying addressed

Most of the interventions proposed were not specific to one type of WB. Specifically, 75.0% (n = 18) of the studies did not specify the nature of the bullying encountered (physical, psychological, or sexual), and 66.6% (n = 16) did not specify who the perpetrator was (bottom-up, top-to-bottom, or horizontal).

Domains studied

The studies were conducted in the private sector (33%), the public sector (20%), and both (6%). More specific areas were the medical sector, educational sector, students, and manufacturing employees.

Identification of methods used to resolve bullying situations

The 24 articles retained presented either interventions or coping strategies used by various stakeholders. In total, 17 interventions and 16 coping strategies were identified in the articles. For this manuscript, interventions are defined as actions taken by more than just the victim, usually the organization or one of its representatives. Coping strategies are defined as adaptative strategies taken by the victim of workplace bullying to deal with this issue. Where intervention outcomes were reported, findings varied: some interventions produced positive effects, while others had no impact or even exacerbated the situation for the victim.

The interventions used most were: mediation (5), filing a complaint (5), leaving the organization (4), and union claim or intervention (3). Seeking support from the organization (7), seeking social support (4), separating the victim and bully (3), and seeking professional help (3) were the coping strategies used most. Of these, quitting the organization and separating the victim from the bully were the only coping strategy and intervention that yielded positive results. Specifically, it was deemed to have been positive since the situation only got better once the victim left the organization. Table 2 presents the interventions identified in the article and their outcomes, while Table 3 presents the coping strategies used and their outcomes.

Table 2.

Intervention description and its outcomes.

Intervention Name [number of the study]	Description	Outcomes
Third party intervention – mediation ^{13,43,48,51,58}*	No description given.^43,48,51,58 Considered a broad intervention which can include conflict resolution. The mediation is usually terminated once the immediate problem has been resolved.¹³	Increased isolation and puts the responsibility of resolving the bullying case on the victim.⁴³ Constraints put on the harassment contact officer do not allow him to help.⁴³ Made the situation worse⁴³ 23.5% success rate⁵¹ It sometimes did not work.¹³ The issue could seem resolved in the eyes of the lawyers, court, mediators and conciliators, but not necessarily the target.⁵⁸ Not specified.⁴⁸
Union claim/intervention^42,48,49	Reaching out to the union in order to receive support from them. Not specified^42,49	Many individuals who used this strategy did not see an improvement in their situation (66%).⁴² Not specified.^48,49 The intervention prolonged the bullying.
Organisational Sequestering⁴⁷	Three types of organisational sequestering: Reframing Rejigging Rebuffing
Filing of a complaint^{47,49,50,17,62}	Filing a complaint with the human resources or manager.	It worsened the situation and is not considered a suitable option by the victim.⁴⁹ Participants’ reports were that management developed actions that “looked as though” they were dealing with the grievance without solving the problem or providing favourable results for the participant.⁵⁷ It triggered an investigation.⁶² Not specified.^45,50
Leaving the organization^47,49,51,62	Victim decides to leave the organization.^47,49,51,62	The situation only got better when the victim and the bully stopped working together.^47,51,62 Most employees quit even when the situation was resolved, as they remained unhappy.⁴⁹
Informal intervention⁴⁹	Informal intervention (usually a discussion) between the bully and the victim	This was considered a successful intervention by some of the respondents (no other details provided).
Cognitive Rehearsal Program⁵²	10 sessions of 2 h each which allows participants to learn communication skills (non-violent communication) and take part in bullying scenarios.	Ineffective in reducing WB and experiences of symptoms among nurses in this study.
BE NICE Program⁵³	This program is based on the idea that designing a program that encourages third-party intervention could be the most effective way to address bullying. The goal of this program was to use bystanders to stop bullying as it was happening.	The bystander felt better equipped to intervene when encountering a bullying situation. The program helped a bystander intervene and work with management to stop the situation.
Coaching intervention^13,60	Coach supports the superior or the work council officiant who is responsible for resolving the bullying case in the organization.¹³ The victim can also be coached to understand how to process the bullying.^13,60	Not specified.
Organizational development intervention¹³	Changing the practices of the organization to resolve the bullying case and prevent future situations.	Not specified.
CR Smart-phone application intervention⁵⁵	Smartphone application which consists of an introduction to non-violent conversation as a standard communication, six webtoons of WB situations, and a bulletin board for questions and answers.	The intervention significantly reduced nurses’ person-related and work related WB, but not intimidation-related WB. Finally, turnover intention is reduced for the intervention group.
Disciplinary actions intervention⁵⁶	Typically involves (threats of) dismissal, formal warnings or pay cuts.	Not specified.
Reconciliation intervention⁵⁶	Reconciliation between the bully and the victim. This intervention does not favour punishment.	Not specified.
Informal counselling⁵⁶	A discussion between a representative of the organization and the perpetrator. These have a corrective function and remind the perpetrator of the rules in the organization.	Not specified
Investigation^59,62	Investigating a claim to determine whether bullying is present in the situation and to take the appropriate actions.	Not specified.⁵⁹ It was noted that the human resources practitioners tended to feel like they had to side with the organization and the managers.⁵⁹ The bully got fired.⁶²
Institution-wide mandatory program¹⁹	Not specified.	Considered to be ineffective.
Specific intervention for the unit¹⁹	Specific intervention for the individuals in the unit built in collaboration with institutional and administrative support	Considered to be effective.

*The number in brackets refers to the article number in Table 1 .

Table 3.

Coping strategies description and its outcomes.

Strategy [Number of Study]	Description	Outcomes
Seeking Professional Help (Counsellors and Psychiatrists)^42,49,56	No description.^42,49	Not Equally used by both individuals whose situation worsen and individual whose situation was completely resolved (50%).⁴² Not specified.^49,56
Resigned Acceptance⁴⁹	Accepting the bullying and considering it to be part of a lager plan for their life.	Not specified.
Problem-focused coping^42,49	Threatening to file a formal complaint, confronting the bully and adopting identical target strategies⁴⁹ Fighting back with similar means⁴²	Effective in ending the bully's misbehaviours.⁴⁹ This intervention was not used by any of the individuals who indicated that their situation was completely resolved. However, it was used by 40% of the individuals whose situation worsened.⁴²
Seeking social support^51,54,61,62	Victim takes part in self-care strategies and discusses the issue with someone they trust^51,54,61,62	Not specified.⁵¹ It was positive for one individual as the colleague to whom they spoke stood up for them and that caused the bully to leave.⁵⁴ It was deceiving for some victims as the colleagues showed sympathy and support, but stayed passive.⁶¹ Some colleagues acted and confronted the bully directly.⁶¹ It was positive as the team and manager helped them feel empowered to denounce the bully.⁶²
Solitary coping⁵⁴	Victim distances themselves from their work relationship.	Allows the victim to create a little more (emotional) distance between themselves and the bullying (positive outcome). Victim feels as if they became isolated and distanced from those employees who were not taking part in the bullying (negative outcome).
Avoidance coping^42,54	Victim decides to not interact with anyone.⁵⁴ Not specified⁴²	This allows the victim to protect themselves⁵⁴ Isolation⁵⁴ 63% of the individuals who indicated that their situation was completely resolved used this strategy.⁴²
Talking to the bully^42,51	Attempting to retrieve a relationship with the bully⁵¹ Not specified⁴²	44% of the individuals who were able to completely resolve their situation used this strategy.⁴² Not specified⁵¹
Taking sick leave^42,51	Victim takes sick leave to cope with the WB.⁵¹	This strategy did not work in the long-term and the stress and bullying increased when they returned.⁵¹ 0% of the individuals whose situation was completely resolved used this strategy. 34% of the individuals whose situation worsened used it.⁴²
Confrontation^32,54	Confronting the bully in the presence of someone else.⁵⁴	One individual indicated that this was successful since the bully left the organization after being confronted.⁵⁴ It was reported as being successful by some individuals.³²
Seeking support from the organization (also called voicing)^{19,32,42,46,54,61,62}	Victim reports the incident(s) to a manager or HR.^{32,42,54,61,62} Manager addresses the issue with the bully.¹⁹ The victim voices their situation to an organizational member or discusses the situation with management.⁴⁶	When the bully received support from the manager, there were positive results. However, this was not always the case⁵⁴ This strategy was used equally by individuals who completely resolved their situation, as well as those whose situation worsened (65% and 63%).⁴² It was a successful experience since management supported the victims and took action.^46,62 Experiencing inaction from an interventionist, particularly disagreement, made victims question whether the behaviours were unreasonable, and whether they were indeed at fault. Victims also experienced situations where an interventionist had attempted to take action but was unable to stop the bullying.³² Manager didn’t intervene⁶¹ Not specified.¹⁹
Separating the victim and bully^32,54,56	Using managerial power to separate the victim and bully.^32,54,56	Successful intervention³² Not specified.
Using drugs⁴²	Not specified.	Of the participants who were successful in completely improving their situation, 0% used this approach. Of the participants who indicated that their situation worsened, 25% used it.
Acquiescence, neglect and voice⁴⁶	Cycle taken by the victim: The victim begins by accepting the bullying in the short term and doing what was asked by the perpetrator. The victim would keep quiet and stay away from the bully. Finally, the victim would voice the situation to an organizational member.	Depends on the situation. Some experienced support from management and the case was resolved, while others did not experience the same outcome.
Acquiescence, neglect, voice and exit⁴⁶	Cycle taken by the victim: The victim begins by accepting the bullying in the short term and doing what was asked by the perpetrator. The victim would keep quiet and stay away from the bully. The victim would voice the situation to an organizational member. The victim leaves the organization.	These employees quit the organizations since they did not feel like the organization supported them.
Seeking external assistance⁵⁶	Calling upon external and expert help to help resolve the issue.	Not specified.
Process taken by victim³²	Process used by victims: Sensemaking Deliberating Reporting	Successful and unsuccessful interventions following reporting.

Phases of the intervention

Only 29.2% of the articles (7 articles) described the steps (phases) taken in the intervention suggested. When the responsible stakeholder for the intervention is not the victim, the first phase usually involves a gathering of information or an assessment of the situation. Specifically, interventions for which the organization (management, human resources, or hired external consultant) is responsible start with an analysis of the situation. This same first phase is usually also completed by victims since they usually start the process by assessing their situation in order to decide their next steps.³² Finally, all these phases have one factor in common, which is that they must be completed promptly. All the articles indicate that the steps in an intervention should be completed as rapidly as possible to address the WB issue. Table 4 outlines the various steps mentioned in the articles found for each of the interventions.

Table 4.

Phases of the identified intervention.

Name of intervention or strategy	Phases
Filing of a complaint	Phase 1: Assessing the substance of a complaint
Filing of a complaint	Phase 2: Communicating the outcome to the complainant
Union claim/intervention	Phase 1: Applying directly to the union
	Phase 2: Assigning an ombudsman to the case
	Phase 3: Ombudsman solves the case
BE NICE Program	Phase 1: Stand-by
	Phase 2: Support
	Phase 3: Speak-up
	Phase 4: Sequester
Mediation	Phase 1: Determining what is the cause of the bullying to identify if mediation is the right approach;
	Phase 2: Individual meeting with each party
	Phase 3: Meeting with the victim and the bully
	Phase 4: Implication of management if necessary
	Phase 5: Agreement of what will be done
	Phase 6: Follow-up (if purchased by the client)
Coaching for the organisation	Phase 1: Analysing the situation
Coaching for the organisation	Phase 2: Coaching the manager or work council to deal with the bullying case or coaching the victim.
Coaching for the victim	Phase 1: Developing emotion-focused solutions
	Phase 2: Developing self and situational awareness
	Phase 3: Developing problem-focused solution
	Phase 4: Developing a future vision
Organizational development intervention	Phase 1: Analyze the situation
Organizational development intervention	Phase 2: Put the changes in place needed in the organization (procedures, rules, clarification of roles, etc.)
Disciplinary actions intervention	Phase 1: Fact-finding/investigations
Disciplinary actions intervention	Phase 2: Disciplinary actions or threatening to take disciplinary actions
Reconciliation intervention	Phase 1: Fact-finding/investigations
Reconciliation intervention	Phase 2: Reconciliation process
Informal counselling⁵⁶	Phase 1: Fact-finding/investigations
Informal counselling⁵⁶	Phase 2: Informal discussion with the perpetrator
Process taken by victims	Phase 1: Sensemaking (deciding whether or not the bullying is their fault and whether or not the perpetrator is a bully)
	Phase 2: Deliberating (weighing the pros and cons of reporting the incident(s))
	Phase 3: Reporting

Stakeholders involved and their roles

This scoping review identified that both internal and external stakeholders should be involved when resolving bullying in an organization. Specifically, according to the retained articles, the following internal stakeholders could be involved: (1) harassment contact officer; (2) HR manager; (3) HR representative; (4) manager; (5) victim; (6) union; (7) ombudsman; (8) colleagues; and (9) bystanders. Notably, 45.8% of the identified methods were undertaken solely by the victim: seeking professional help, resigned acceptance, leaving the organization, problem-focused coping, talking to the bully, taking sick leave, seeking social support, cognitive rehearsal program, solitary coping, avoidance coping, cognitive-rehearsal smart-phone application intervention, and sensemaking and deliberating. In the other methods reported (11 out of 13), the manager or the human resources are usually the stakeholders involved. Their roles usually consist of putting in place an intervention and taking the necessary actions to stop the bullying. Specifically, the responsibility of acting following the denunciation falls on those stakeholders. Lawyers, consultants, and mediators are the external stakeholders who could also be involved in the process. Finally, different authors identified different stakeholders for the same role. For example, depending on the article, the mediator could be the HR manager, a lawyer, or a consultant. Finally, there were discrepancies in some of the interventions and the roles of the stakeholders. Informal support could either be the victim speaking unofficially to a supervisor for support or the manager discussing the issue unofficially with the victim and the bully. Table 5 presents the roles of the various stakeholders involved in the coping strategies and interventions.

Table 5.

Roles of the stakeholders in each of the interventions.

Intervention or strategy	Stakeholders	Roles
Mediation^{13,43,48,51,58}	Harassment contact officer⁴³	– Listening to targets to allow them to vent. – Explaining the options to the victims. – Directing victims to the right resource (HR, managers, counsellors) – Providing sympathy – Trying to “build people up” so they are better able to cope. – Imparting information at work events.
	HR manager⁴⁸	– Take part in the mediation or act as the mediator
	Lawyer^19,48	– Act as the mediator (8) – Represent one of the parties (20)
	Manager^13,48	– Take part in the mediation (when necessary) (7) (8) – Approve the strategies taken by the bully and victim (7)
	Victim⁵¹	– Voice their concern to the workplace hierarchy
	Consultant¹³	– Plan the sessions – Meet with the participants – Lead mediation sessions
	Mediator¹⁹	– Lead the mediation process.
Complaint resolution from an HR view⁴⁵	HR personnel	Assess and resolve complaints.
Organisational Sequestering⁴⁵ 1) Reframing	HR and line managers	View what the victim reports from a different perspective to make it something other than bullying (treat it as personal matter, say the claim is to cover poor performance).
Organisational Sequestering⁴⁵ 2) Rejigging	HR	Provide coping mechanisms instead of revolving the issue and focus on the outcome rather than the cause.
Organisational Sequestering⁴⁵ 3) Rebuffing	HR, line managers and union	Push the target away when they request help (using active approaches such as misleading the victim or passive approaches such as ignoring the concern and not acting).
Union Claim^48,49	Victim⁴⁸	Applies directly to the union
	Union⁴⁸	Assign an ombudsman to the case
	Ombudsman⁴⁸	Talk to the victim, the employer and the mobber Solve the problem (without firing the mobber as it is not an option)
Professional help^42,49,56	Victim	Seeking professional help (counsellor and psychiatrists)
Resigned Acceptance⁴⁹	Victim	Accepting the bullying and seeing it as part of a larger plan
Filing a complaint^49,50,57	Victim^49,50	– Filing the complaint
	HR or managers^49,50,57	– Evaluating the complaint^49,50,57 – Taking the necessary steps as outlined in the anti-bullying policy⁵⁰
	Colleagues⁴⁹	– Supporting the victim. – Providing a witness statement when necessary.
Leaving the organization^47,49,51,54	Victim^47,49,51,54	– Quitting the organization^47,49,51,54 – Looking for other employment option⁴⁹
Leaving the organization^47,49,51,54	Colleagues⁴⁹	– Supporting the victim⁴⁹
Informal support⁴⁹	Victim	– Informally discussing the issue with a manager
Informal support⁴⁹	Superior/Manager	– Informally discussing the issue with the victim and the bully
Problem-focused coping⁴⁹	Victim	– Threatening to file a complaint – Confronting the bully – Adopting identical target strategies
Talking to the bully⁵¹	Victim	– Initiating a face-to-face discussion with the bully
Taking sick leave	Victim	– Asking for sick leave (declaring the reason as WB or not)
Seeking social support^51,54,61	Victim	– Seeking social support from family, friends, and colleagues^51,54,61 – Seeking medical support⁵¹ – Engaging in self-care⁵¹ – Externalizing events⁵¹ – Seeking support from external supervisors⁵¹
Seeking social support^51,54,61	Colleagues	– Acting on the information and taking the steps necessary to stop the bullying.
Cognitive Rehearsal Program⁵²	Victim	– Take part in the program
BE NICE Program⁵³	Bystander (trained with the program)	– STEP 1: Stand-by the victim being bullied, remain calm and physically align the body with that of the victim – STEP 2: Offer support in terms of listening and encouragement to the victim (social support). – STEP 3: Speak up and denounce the situation on behalf of the victim STEP 4: Ask the victim to talk in private to remove them from the situation.
Seeking support from the organization^{19,32,42,46,54,61}	Victim^{32,42,46,54,61}	– Report the incident and seek support from manager^{32,42,46,54,61}
Seeking support from the organization^{19,32,42,46,54,61}	Manager^{19,32,46,54,61}	– Implicate HR^32,54 – Take actions to stop the bullying^32,46,61 – Making it clear that bullying will not be tolerated.¹⁹
Confrontation⁵⁴	Victim	– Confronts the bully in the presence of a manager or someone else.
Separating the victim and bully^54,56	Manager⁵⁴	– Changing individuals around to create a new climate, prevent certain individuals from working together, etc
Separating the victim and bully^54,56	HR⁵⁶	– Identifying a transfer to separate the target and perpetrators
Solitary coping⁵⁴	Victim	– Distancing themselves from work
Avoidance coping⁵⁴	Victim	– Changing one's approach to interacting with others
Not a specific intervention, but the role of the leader⁴⁴	Leader	– The leader needs to be empowering. – Being fair and supportive did not seem to have an impact
Acquiescence, neglect and voice⁴⁶	Victim	– Accepts the bullying in the short term and does what is asked by the perpetrator. – Keeps quiet and stays away from the bully. – Voicing the situation to an organizational member.
Acquiescence, neglect, voice and exit⁴⁶	Victim	– Accepts the bullying in the short term and does what is asked by the perpetrator. – Keeps quiet and stays away from the bully. – Voices the situation to an organizational member. – Leaves the organization.
Coaching intervention^13,60	Victim^13,60	– Listen and be present at meetings.^13,60 – Plan goals and become cognisant of their strengths⁶⁰
	Coach⁶⁰	– PHASE 1: Guides the client in ways to uplift, manage and express emotions – PHASE 2: Help the client attain clarity of perception and correct focus of what is going on in personal bullying interactions – PHASE 3: Strategize with the client the type of language, behaviour and timing to use with a bully – PHASE 4: Help clients to envision a better life for themselves after coming through the other side of workplace intimidation
	Management¹³	– Listen and be present to meetings.
	Consultant⁵⁴	– Analyse the situation (with or without the help of management) – Coach the person who needs it.
Organizational development intervention¹³	Consultant	– Analyse the situation (with or without the help of management) – Choose the correct interventions to put in place. – Accompany the organization in putting these in place (if purchased)
Organizational development intervention¹³	Organization	– Be open to reviewing their practices. – Collaborate with the consultant and put the necessary changes in place.
CR Smart-phone application intervention⁵⁵	Victim	– Listen to the webtoons – Refer to the application when necessary
Disciplinary action intervention⁵⁶	HR	– Hearing both sides of the complaint. – Identifying the level of bullying – Taking disciplinary actions or threatening to use them (such as pay cut, and dismissal).
Disciplinary action intervention⁵⁶	Victim	– Making HR aware of the situation
Reconciliation intervention⁵⁶	Victim	– Making HR aware of the situation
Reconciliation intervention⁵⁶	HR	– Hearing both sides of the complaint. – Identifying the level of bullying – Putting in place a reconciliation process.
Informal counselling intervention⁵⁶	HR	– Hearing both sides of the complaint. – Identifying the level of bullying. – Talking with the perpetrator to address the problem. Subjects can include the codes of conduct and company values and give the perpetrator a chance to change their behavior before moving to disciplinary action.
Seeking external assistance⁵⁶	HR	– Hearing both sides of the complaint. – Identifying the level of bullying – Calling upon external experts
Investigation⁵⁹	Line Manager	– Initial investigation – Collaborate with HR
Investigation⁵⁹	HR	– Conduct a thorough investigation – Determine future actions
Institution-wide mandatory program¹⁹	Manager	– Implementing the program.
Specific intervention for the unit¹⁹	Manager	– Intervening in collaboration with institutional and administrative support in a specific manner.
Sensemaking³²	Victim	– Deciding whether or not the bullying is their fault. – Deciding whether or not the perpetrator is a bully.
Deliberating³²	Victim	– Deliberating whether the concerns will be accepted, whether change is possible and whether they will received repercussions after reporting.

Discussion

The objective of this scoping review was to map the process—key steps and potential interventions—following the reporting of a workplace bullying (WB) incident, taking into account the roles of various stakeholders in the resolution process. A total of 24 articles were included, the majority of which employed qualitative methodologies and originated from Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Given the descriptive nature of interventions following WB incidents, the predominance of qualitative studies was anticipated. However, North America appears to be underrepresented, with only a limited number of studies on WB interventions identified from this region.

Only a few studies reported the specific type of harassment or the nature of the perpetrator, suggesting that WB interventions may be somewhat generalizable and not necessarily tied to particular forms or contexts. The analysis identified 17 interventions aimed at addressing WB after its occurrence, with mediation, filing a complaint, and leaving the organization being the most frequently mentioned. These findings highlight that the burden of response often falls on the victim, who is solely responsible for nearly half of the interventions identified. Furthermore, many of these interventions yielded mixed or negative outcomes. This aligns with existing literature indicating that human resources personnel often observe limited effectiveness in addressing escalated WB cases.^1,42

Sixteen coping strategies were also identified, among which seeking social or organizational support and separating the victim from the perpetrator were the most frequently cited. Notably, perceived support was one of the key factors influencing whether victims chose to report an incident.³² This finding is consistent with studies emphasizing the importance of leadership in demonstrating, through concrete actions, that WB will not be tolerated.^18,63 Moreover, the perceived support from management and the organization can affect both the outcomes of interventions⁵⁴ and the well-being of victims, potentially exacerbating harm if support is lacking.⁶⁴ Organizational support also influences employees’ decisions to remain loyal to, or to leave, their workplace.⁶⁵ Nonetheless, research consistently shows that victims of WB are often disappointed by the lack of meaningful action taken by management to support them.^66,67

Proposed process

Figure 2 presents a proposed resolution process following WB that includes the observations based on the process taken by the victim and presented by Blackwood et al.,³² the process proposed by the Government of Canada,⁶⁸ and the information gathered in this scoping review. This process, which unifies the literature, outlines the key steps taken by the key stakeholders in the resolution of WB. Considering that WB is a complex issue, it would be impossible to provide a single, defined process that would allow for the resolution of this issue. The process suggested should thus be considered sequential but not rigid. In other words, the order in which the steps are presented should be respected, but the way to complete these steps could vary greatly from one organization to another. Many factors will determine how these steps will be taken: the size of the organization, the structure of the organization, the victim's wishes, and the actions of the bully.^27,69 However, the one aspect which should be respected in all of these steps is prompt and consistent action. Many studies indicate that when the process is started, it should be taken seriously by the organization and that they must act quickly and consistently.^69,56,70 It's also noteworthy that the longer it takes to resolve the case, the greater the negative impacts will be on the organization and the victim.⁷¹

Figure 2.

Proposed process.

Key stakeholders in the process

The core stakeholders involved in the WB resolution process are the human resources practitioner (HRP), management, the victim, and the alleged aggressor. These stakeholders are the ones who should have ownership of the process since their participation will influence the planning and increase their motivation and commitment to the resolution of the case.⁷¹ Therefore, for the resolution of WB using this process, all these parties are expected to commit to the process. HRPs are considered one of the main stakeholders since they are responsible for enforcing the rules, policies, and procedures of the company, moderating disputes, and facilitating the relationships between employees.⁷² Managers, who are considered to be individuals in the organization who have authority, are also important stakeholders in the process as they are responsible for promoting a healthy working climate to their employees.⁶⁸ The specific role to be taken by management will depend on many factors, such as the company's policy on bullying, the implication of management in the bullying case, the victim's ease with management, and other considerations. However, in most cases, managers and HRPs will work collaboratively to resolve the conflict since managers are usually the stakeholders who can make the necessary decisions.⁵⁰

The victim will also have an important role to play in the process. In fact, the victim is the one most able to start this process by speaking up and denouncing their situation.³²

Both the victim and the alleged aggressor will have an important part to play in choosing the intervention. For an informal approach to be used, both parties must be willing to work towards the same goal.⁷³

Finally, other stakeholders, such as internal and external consultants, may be included in the process, but these have an optional role. Once again, factors such as the size of the organization and the budget allowed to resolve the issue will have an impact on who will be implicated.^18,56

Offering support as a transversal step in the process

The proposed process includes a transversal step that offers support to the stakeholders. This step is based on the known psychological impacts of WB on those stakeholders.¹⁵ In fact, support in the form of coaching is considered to be effective in helping not only the target of bullying but also the perpetrator and senior leadership.^18,32 Support can also be offered through professional help from a counsellor or therapist^42,49,56 and social support.^51,54 These interventions are usually completed outside of the organization by external parties and aim to reduce the damage caused by WB.⁷⁴

Steps

Step 1: reporting the bullying

The first phase requires the victim to report the bullying to a person they trust in the organization.^{19,32,42,46,54} Interventions presented in this scoping review also encouraged bystanders and colleagues to report incidences of WB and to act accordingly to their respective roles.⁵³ One of the most important factors is how the employee is received by the person they trust. Often, the intervener will be a manager, a member of the human resources team, or a union representative.⁴⁸ As suggested by the Government of Canada,⁶⁸ two words of caution: it is crucial for the employer to treat the subject seriously, listen to the victim, and be non-judgmental, objective, and patient. It is also important for the individual who listens to the victim not to jump to immediately resolve the issue. Finally, taking prompt action is also mandatory in such cases.^56,68

Step 2: fact finding

The first step taken in any type of intervention should always be a thorough investigation and analysis of the situation.^13,56 This is consistent with most conflict resolution models in which the first step is to gather information for analysis.⁷³ This step can take many forms, but it must be in accordance with the policy in place (if this exists),^1,50 and the intervener must objectively gather information on the issue.⁶⁸ This step requires the responsible person to listen to both sides and determine the level of bullying.⁵⁶ Should the manager or the human resource employee feel unable to conduct such an analysis, they should seek assistance.⁵⁹ Assistance can be obtained with the help of external or internal consultants. Internal consultants, such as a human resource employee or manager and a harassment contact officer, should be considered to be neutral in the organization.^32,43,54 External consultants can include organizational consultants, mediators, coaches, and lawyers.⁵⁶

Step 3: choosing the method to address the bullying

Based on the facts gathered in the previous step, the third step requires the intervener to present the possible options for resolution to both parties. Most of the articles reviewed did not present this as a distinct step. We propose to choose the resolution method after the fact-finding step and in collaboration with the victim, the perpetrator, and the representative of the organization. This is based on the fact that it is particularly important for both parties to be involved in choosing the method since this will be linked to their motivation and commitment to resolving the case.⁷¹ Choosing the method also allows the parties to feel as if they have some control over the outcome and counters the loss of control they experience when faced with WB.⁷⁵ Different interventions will also require a different commitment and collaboration from the parties.⁵⁶ Specifically, interventions can be categorized as formal or informal approaches.⁵⁶ Informal approaches usually wish to reach a reconciliation between the perpetrator and the victim, while formal interventions usually involve a formal investigation, which can be followed by sanctions in the form of disciplinary actions.⁵⁶

Informal interventions are usually favoured first when dealing with a case of WB.²³ However, when a situation is serious enough, disciplinary actions might need to be taken even if the victim does not wish to file an official complaint.⁶⁸ In this case, an informal intervention can also be used to restore the relationship.

Examples of informal interventions are mediation, guided discussion, organizational development, reconciliation, and confrontation. Formal interventions include union claims, filing an official complaint, disciplinary actions, official investigations, and separating the parties.^{13,48,49,56,59}

Step 4: implementing the method

Once the method has been chosen, the fourth step requires the intervener to promptly implement the method and follow the appropriate procedure for the chosen intervention.⁵⁶ Based on the intervention chosen, the appropriate stakeholders should be requested, and the proper experts should be hired.

Step 5: evaluating the method chosen

The final step would be to evaluate the intervention chosen. Many employees indicated that the method used by the organization did not work, and they felt they had no other option than to leave the organization.³² The goal of this step is to evaluate whether or not the intervention was successful and to make further changes should it not be working.¹³ We propose that the process be restarted if the evaluation does not produce positive results.

Strengths and limitations of the study, future studies

This scoping review offers two principal strengths. First, the study provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature that details interventions and coping strategies employed by key stakeholders in an organization following workplace bullying incidents. While previous reviews outlined effective interventions for WB, the strength of this research is that it unified the interventions with government protocols dealing with WB. The second strength of this research is that it is the first study to propose a practical, rigorous, and transparent model for intervening following WB. This model takes into consideration not only the steps but also the roles of the key stakeholders, as well as the possible peripheral stakeholders.

Despite its contributions, this study has a few limitations. First, the articles chosen and reviewed often lacked information. For example, many of them did not outline the steps taken or even define the intervention. This made the analysis more challenging. Second, the proposed resolution framework is theoretical in nature and has yet to be empirically validated through field implementation. Finally, the geographical distribution of the selected studies – concentrated in Northern Europe, the United States, and Oceania – may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or organizational contexts. Also, the type of industries and their size are not always reported in the studies, making it unclear for which areas this model is best suited. Future studies should focus on testing this model and adjusting it as needed. Specifically, studies should focus on implementing this model and identifying areas of improvement in order to develop a universal model for dealing with a case of WB.

Conclusion and practical implications

The objective of the present study was to map out the process following the reporting of a workplace harassment case, taking into account the roles of stakeholders involved in the process. A scoping review was completed, which considered peer-reviewed articles published since January 2000 up to December 2024. The results indicated that mediation and filing a complaint were the most used interventions while seeking support from the organization, separating the victim and perpetrator, and seeking professional help were the most used coping strategies. The results also indicated that the first step following the reporting of WB often included data gathering by an intervener. For 45.8% of the methods, only the victim was in charge of the solution. Building on this analysis, a five-step resolution model was proposed, outlining the roles of both internal and external stakeholders across the resolution process. Having a delineated process that clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of the organization's stakeholders could help to remove some of the responsibility placed on the victim and foster more collaboration between all stakeholders. It could also better equip the stakeholders by clarifying their roles and responsibilities within the organization, thus positively impacting the victim's well-being.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors have no acknowledgments.

ORCID iDs

François Courcy

Frédéric Mallette

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received a scholarship from the Research Chair in Mental Health and Work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The data supporting the results of this study are available within the tables included in this published article.

References

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

, et al. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition. Bullying Harass Workplace Dev Theory Res Pract 2011: 3–39.

Nielsen

Einarsen

. What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: an overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggress Violent Behav 2018; 42: 71–83.

Samnani

Singh

. 20 Years of workplace bullying research: a review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggress Violent Behav 2012; 17: 581–589.

Ciby

Raya

. Workplace bullying: a review of the defining features, measurement methods and prevalence across continents. IIM Kozhikode Soc Manag Rev 2015; 4: 38–47.

Galanaki

Papalexandris

. Measuring workplace bullying in organisations. Int J Hum Resour Manag 2013; 24: 2107–2130.

Namie

. 2017 Workplace Bullying Institute U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey. [cited 2020 Jul 31]. https://www.academia.edu/34436718/2017_Workplace_Bullying_Institute_U.S._Workplace_Bullying_Survey

Hango

Moyser

. Harcèlement en milieu de travail au Canada [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Statistique Canada, 2018. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/fr/pub/75-006-x/2018001/article/54982-fra.pdf?st=u-EPLRcr

Rahm

Rystedt

Wilde-Larsson

, et al. Workplace bullying among healthcare professionals in Sweden: a descriptive study. Scand J Caring Sci 2019; 33: 582–591.

Zabrodska

Kveton

. Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying among university employees. Empl Responsib Rights J 2013; 25: 89–108.

10.

Orange

. Workplace bullying in schools: teachers’ perceptions of why they were mistreated. Educ Forum 2018; 82: 390–405.

11.

Venetoklis

Kettunen

. Workplace bullying in the Finnish public sector: who, me? Rev Public Pers Adm 2016; 36: 370–395.

12.

Escartin

. Insights into workplace bullying: psychosocial drivers and effective interventions. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2016; 157. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S91211

13.

Saam

. Interventions in workplace bullying: a multilevel approach. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2010; 19: 51–75.

14.

Treasury Board of Canada. Politique sur la prévention et la résolution du harcèlement [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2025 Feb 7]. https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-fra.aspx?id=26041

15.

Bartlett

. Workplace bullying: an integrative literature review. Adv Dev Hum Resour 2011; 13: 69–84.

16.

Zapf

Einarsen

Hoel

, et al. Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In: Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: international perspectives in research and practice. London ; New York: Taylor & Francis, 2003, pp.103–126.

17.

Branch

Ramsay

Barker

. Managers in the firing line: contributing factors to workplace bullying by staff – an interview study. J Manag Organ 2007; 13: 264–281.

18.

Fields

. A grounded theory study of how executive coaches help professionals deal with workplace intimidation [Internet] [Ph.D.]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Ann Arbor: Capella University, 2016. http://ezproxy.usherbrooke.ca/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/grounded-theory-study-how-executive-coaches-help/docview/1790114322/se-2?accountid=13835

19.

Skarbek

Johnson

Dawson

. A phenomenological study of nurse manager interventions related to workplace bullying. JONA J Nurs Adm 2015; 45: 492–497.

20.

Boudrias

Trépanier

Salin

. A systematic review of research on the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the mechanisms involved. Aggress Violent Behav 2021; 56: 101508.

21.

Leach

Poyser

Butterworth

. Workplace bullying and the association with suicidal ideation/thoughts and behaviour: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2017; 74: 72–79.

22.

Giga

Hoel

Lewis

. The costs of workplace bullying. A Report and Review for the Dignity at work partnership. Bradford, UK: Unite the Union and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2008, pp.1–39.

23.

Salin

. Organisational responses to workplace harassment: an exploratory study. Pers Rev 2009; 38: 26–44.

24.

Jang

Son

Lee

. Intervention types and their effects on workplace bullying among nurses: a systematic review. J Nurs Manag 2022: 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13655

25.

Caponecchia

Branch

Murray

. Development of a taxonomy of workplace bullying intervention types: informing research directions and supporting organizational decision making. Group Organ Manag 2020; 45: 103–133.

26.

Murray

Branch

Caponecchia

. Success factors in workplace bullying interventions: from foundational to high-level evidence. Int J Workplace Health Manag 2019; 13: 321–339.

27.

Fox

Cowan

. Revision of the workplace bullying checklist: the importance of human resource management’s role in defining and addressing workplace bullying. Hum Resour Manag J 2015; 25: 116–130.

28.

Garbe

. Workplace bullying: understanding its broader impact and consequences. J Act Aging 2019; 18: 72–76.

29.

Gardner

O’Driscoll

Cooper-Thomas

, et al. Predictors of workplace bullying and cyber-bullying in New Zealand. Int Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13: 48.

30.

Khalique

Arif

Siddiqui

, et al. Impact of workplace bullying on job performance, intention to leave, OCB and stress. Pak J Psychol Res 2018; 33: 55–74.

31.

Hauge

Einarsen

Knardahl

, et al. Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. Int J Stress Manag 2011; 18: 305–323.

32.

Blackwood

Bentley

Catley

. A victim’s search for resolution: conceptualising workplace bullying and its intervention as a process. J Health Saf Environ 2018; 34: 7–31.

33.

Peters

MDJ

Godfrey

Khalil

, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015; 13: 141–146.

34.

Munn

Peters

MDJ

Stern

, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 43.

35.

Peters

Godfrey

McInerney

, et al. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris

Munn

(eds) JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Adelaide, SA, Australia: JBI, 2020.

36.

Corbière

Mazaniello-Chézol

Bastien

, et al. Stakeholders’ role and actions in the return-to-work process of workers on sick-leave due to common mental disorders: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil 2020; 30: 381–419.

37.

Richard

Corbière

Fiset-Renaud

, et al. Disclosure Impact of Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: A Scoping Review and a Thematic Analysis. J Occup Rehabil 2025. doi : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-025-10288-1

38.

Mazaniello-Chézol

Corbière

. L’examen de la portée (scoping review/study) : synthèse des rôles et actions des acteurs impliqués dans le retour au travail des employés en absence maladie due à un trouble mental courant. In: Corbière

Larivière

(eds) Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé. 2e éd. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2020, pp.310–345.

39.

Arksey

O’Malley

. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19–32.

40.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science : IS 2010; 5: 69.

41.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467–473.

42.

Zapf

Gross

. Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2001; 10: 497–522.

43.

Mawdsley

Thirlwall

. Third-party interventions in workplace bullying: a neoliberal agenda? Empl Relat Int J 2019; 41: 506–519.

44.

Nielsen

Indregard

AMR

Krane

Knardahl

Workplace Bullying and Medically Certified Sickness Absence: Direction of Associations and the Moderating Role of Leader Behavior. Front Psychol. 2019;10:767.

45.

Catley

Blackwood

Forsyth

Tappin

Bentley

. Workplace bullying complaints: lessons for “good HR practice.” PR. 2017;46(1):100–14.

46.

Kwan

SSM

Tuckey

Dollard

. The role of the psychosocial safety climate in coping with workplace bullying: a grounded theory and sequential tree analysis. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2016; 25: 133–148.

47.

Thirlwall

. Organisational sequestering of workplace bullying: Adding insult to injury. Journal of Management & Organization. 2015;21(2):145–58.

48.

Cicerali

. A qualitative study on how Swedish organizations deal with workplace bullying. Nord Psychol 2016; 68: 87–99.

49.

D’Cruz

Paull

Omari

, et al. Target experiences of workplace bullying: insights from Australia, India and Turkey. Empl Relat 2016; 38: 805–823.

50.

Harrington

Rayner

Warren

. Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource practitioners’ implementation of anti-bullying policy: the role of trust in anti-bullying policy. Hum Resour Manag J 2012; 22: 392–408.

51.

van Heugten

. Bullying of social workers: outcomes of a grounded study into impacts and interventions. Br J Soc Work 2010; 40: 638–655.

52.

Kang

Kim

Yun

. Effects of a Cognitive Rehearsal Program on Interpersonal Relationships, Workplace Bullying, Symptom Experience, and Turnover Intention among Nurses: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2017;47(5):689.

53.

Keller

Budin

Allie

. A task force to address bullying. Am J Nurs 2016; 116: 52–58.

54.

Björklund

Hellman

Jensen

, et al. Workplace bullying as experienced by managers and how they cope: a qualitative study of Swedish managers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 4693.

55.

Kang

Jeong

YJ.

Effects of a smartphone application for cognitive rehearsal intervention on workplace bullying and turnover intention among nurses. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019;25(6).

56.

Salin

Cowan

Adewumi

, et al. Prevention of and interventions in workplace bullying: a global study of human resource professionals’ reflections on preferred action. Int J Hum Resour Manag 2020; 31: 2622–2644.

57.

Bryant

Buttigieg

Hanley

. Poor bullying prevention and employee health: some implications. Kelloway K, editor. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2009;2(1):48–62.

58.

Ballard

Easteal

(Alternative) Dispute Resolution and Workplace Bullying: Some Pros and Cons from the Coalface. Alternative Law Journal. 2016;41(2):105–9.

59.

Harrington

Warren

Rayner

. Human resource management practitioners’ responses to workplace bullying: cycles of symbolic violence. Organization 2015; 22: 368–389.

60.

Fields

. A grounded theory study of how executive coaches help professionals deal with workplace intimidation [Ph.D.]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Ann Arbor: Capella University, 2017.

61.

Jönsson

Muhonen

. Factors influencing the behavior of bystanders to workplace bullying in healthcare—A qualitative descriptive interview study. Research in Nursing & Health. 2022;45(4):424–32.

62.

Lally

. Workplace Bullying of Women Leaders in the United States [Ed.D.]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2024.

63.

Arnetz

Sudan

Fitzpatrick

, et al. Organizational determinants of bullying and work disengagement among hospital nurses. J Adv Nurs 2019; 75: 1229–1238.

64.

Ferris

. A preliminary typology of organisational response to allegations of workplace bullying: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Br J Guid Couns 2004; 32: 389–395.

65.

Djurkovic

McCormack

Casimir

. Workplace bullying and intention to leave: the moderating effect of perceived organisational support. Hum Resour Manag J 2008; 18: 405–422.

66.

D’Cruz

Noronha

. The exit coping response to workplace bullying: the contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Empl Relat 2010; 32: 102–120.

67.

Namie

. U.S. workplace bullying: some basic considerations and consultation interventions. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 2009; 61: 202–219.

68.

Government of Canada. Guide on Applying the Harassment Resolution Process [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2025 Feb 7]. https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/wellness-inclusion-diversity-public-service/harassment-violence/guide-applying-harassment-resolution-process.html

69.

Glendinning

. Workplace bullying: curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public Pers Manage 2001; 30: 269–286.

70.

Becton

Gilstrap

Forsyth

. Preventing and correcting workplace harassment: guidelines for employers. Bus Horiz 2017; 60: 101–111.

71.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

, et al. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition. In: Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: developments in theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011, pp.3–39.

72.

Bohlander

Snell

The challenger of human resources management. In: Bohlander

Snell

(eds) Managing human resources. 14th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson, 2007, pp.4–43.

73.

Calvert

Salmon

. Routes to resolution : introducing the resolution spectrum. In: Liddle

(ed.) Managing conflict: a practical guide to resolution in the workplace. 1st ed. New York: Kogan Page Ltd, 2017, pp.146–172.

74.

Tehrani

. An integrated counselling approach. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace bullying: symptoms and solutions. New York: Routledge, 2013, pp.149–165.

75.

Trépanier

Fernet

Austin

. Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: The mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Work. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.782158

What are the steps to resolution taken by key stakeholders following a case of workplace bullying: A scoping review

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Concept of workplace bullying

Impacts of workplace bullying

Prevention and intervention

The present study

Method

Conceptualisation of the scoping review

Implementation of the research strategy

Process of the review

Data extraction

Dissemination of the results and findings

Results

Descriptive analysis results

Synthesis analysis

Type of workplace bullying addressed

Domains studied

Identification of methods used to resolve bullying situations

Phases of the intervention

Stakeholders involved and their roles

Discussion

Proposed process

Key stakeholders in the process

Offering support as a transversal step in the process

Steps

Step 1: reporting the bullying

Step 2: fact finding

Step 3: choosing the method to address the bullying

Step 4: implementing the method

Step 5: evaluating the method chosen

Strengths and limitations of the study, future studies

Conclusion and practical implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

References