Why Workplace Bullying Looks Like a Two-Sided Conflict

Bullying complaints are often treated as conflicts between two people, and mediation is offered as the answer. In a review of 437 studies, the correlation between narcissism and aggression was more than twice as strong under provocation as without it (Kjærvik and Bushman, 2021). The problem is not that both people behaved badly. It is that the process reads the reaction to a boundary as a second, equal grievance.

Escalation is the mechanism

Across 437 studies and 123,043 people, narcissism was linked to every form of aggression the researchers measured, bullying included. The link held for men and women, across ages and cultures, in experiments and in long-term studies (Kjærvik and Bushman, 2021).

What changed its strength was provocation. Under provocation the correlation was .29. Without it, .12. The authors put it plainly: people high in narcissism have “thin skins” and “are prone to aggression when they are provoked.”

In this research, provocation means things like being ignored or insulted. At work it is ordinary. A question in a meeting. A correction. A decision that goes to someone else. A colleague who says no.

The workplace evidence points the same way. A 2026 meta-analysis found narcissism linked to mistreating others at work — bullying, abusive supervision and similar behaviour — at r = .40, though results varied widely between studies. Its review named identity threat among the conditions that shaped how such traits came out (Sui et al., 2026).

So the moment a target sets a boundary may be the moment the behaviour is most likely to escalate. That would not be a sign the boundary failed. It is what this evidence would lead you to expect.

By then, the target looks like the problem

By the time anyone steps in, the person who reported often looks less steady than the person they reported. One is composed and certain. The other is upset, keeping records, writing long emails.

The certainty has a research basis. Across 36 studies and 6,423 people, the more narcissistic people were, the more they rated their competence and status above how others rated them (r = .29). For warmth and honesty the link was close to zero (r = .05) (Grijalva and Zhang, 2016). Their account of themselves arrives confident by default.

The distress is real, and it is what everyone sees. Exposure to bullying can feed the very trait that makes a target look unsettled. In a study of 2,024 Swedish workers, being bullied was followed months later by a rise in neuroticism — the tendency to be “anxious, tense, and easily upset” — through emotional distress (Rosander and Nielsen, 2026). The harm starts to look like the cause.

The person doing the bullying can also present as the injured one. Vulnerable narcissism, the hypersensitive and resentful form, is strongly linked to reactive aggression, the kind that answers a perceived slight (Du, Miller and Lynam, 2022). In a study of 314 women asked about bullying in their friendships, vulnerable narcissism predicted physical and verbal bullying, and one part of it — devaluing others — predicted verbal and indirect bullying (Green and Hart, 2024). Indirect behaviour is easy to retell as a grievance.

Then there is the finding that makes “it takes two” sound scientific. In a Canadian sample of 224 students with work experience, nearly 90% of those who bullied others at least weekly had also been targeted at least weekly over the same six months (Linton and Power, 2013). The overlap is real. It shows both roles exist. It does not show that every case is mutual.

The process finishes the job

Once a case looks mutual, the process tends to protect whoever already has standing. Mediation assumes two parties with comparable power and a shared problem. Applied here, it treats the reaction to a boundary as a second, equal grievance.

• HR reframes it. In interviews, HR practitioners used four interpretive moves that recast a manager’s bullying as legitimate performance management, protecting the organization rather than the employee (Harrington, Warren and Rayner, 2015).
• Targets stop trusting it. In online comments from bullied workers, the authors found HR seen as “complacent, complicit and compounding” (Boddy and Boulter, 2025).
• The procedure carries power. Anti-bullying procedures can themselves protect existing power structures, the argument at the centre of Your anti-bullying policy may be protecting the wrong person (Hodgins, MacCurtain and Mannix-McNamara, 2020).
• Bystanders stay quiet. Colleagues hold back out of fear of the consequences and because the behaviour gets excused (Jönsson and Muhonen, 2022). They are more likely to report formally when they feel backed by their supervisor and the organization (MacCurtain et al., 2018).

Across these settings the studies describe the same outcome. The person who reported is managed. The person reported keeps their standing, and the likely lesson is that escalation works.

One boundary, and the case ends up looking mutual

1. Target sets a boundary says no, asks for change
2. Behaviour escalates stronger when challenged
3. Target shows distress records it, pushes back
4. Onlookers see a clash reads as two-sided
5. Mediation is offered both told to move on
6. Reporter is managed the other keeps standing escalation worked, so it repeats

Six questions before you call it a conflict

A conflict and a pattern look alike from a distance. These questions separate them.

1. What came first? Put the events in order. Did one person’s behaviour follow the other’s boundary, or did both start together?
2. Which way does it run? Over months, does the behaviour flow mostly in one direction?
3. What does the record show? Who seems calm in the room today matters less than what was written over six months.
4. Is distress being read as fault? Visible upset can be evidence of harm. It is not evidence of a share in the blame.
5. Is the remedy neutral? If mediation means the person who reported must negotiate with the person they reported, it is not.
6. Who gains if it is called mutual? Usually the person with more standing.

None of this is a way to diagnose a colleague. These studies measure traits across groups, and a diagnosis belongs to a clinician who has assessed the person. The point is not to label anyone. It is to stop reading escalation as equality.

What it costs to get this wrong

Calling bullying a conflict is not a neutral choice. It leaves the conditions in place. It teaches the person causing harm that escalation works. And it shows everyone watching what reporting will cost them.

Start with one question. Not “what happened between these two?” but “what happened after someone said no?” If no one has asked it, the case is not ready to be called mutual.

References

Boddy CR, Boulter L. HRM’s response to workplace bullying: complacent, complicit and compounding. Journal of Business Ethics. 2025;197(3):541-555. doi:10.1007/s10551-024-05755-3

Du TV, Miller JD, Lynam DR. The relation between narcissism and aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality. 2022;90(4):574-594. doi:10.1111/jopy.12684

Green A, Hart CM. Mean girls in disguise? Associations between vulnerable narcissism and perpetration of bullying among women. Sex Roles. 2024;90(7):848-858. doi:10.1007/s11199-024-01477-y

Grijalva E, Zhang L. Narcissism and self-insight: a review and meta-analysis of narcissists’ self-enhancement tendencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2016;42(1):3-24. doi:10.1177/0146167215611636

Harrington S, Warren S, Rayner C. Human resource management practitioners’ responses to workplace bullying: cycles of symbolic violence. Organization. 2015;22(3):368-389. doi:10.1177/1350508413516175

Hodgins M, MacCurtain S, Mannix-McNamara P. Power and inaction: why organizations fail to address workplace bullying. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2020;13(3):265-290. doi:10.1108/IJWHM-10-2019-0125

Jönsson S, Muhonen T. Factors influencing the behavior of bystanders to workplace bullying in healthcare: a qualitative descriptive interview study. Research in Nursing & Health. 2022;45(4):424-432. doi:10.1002/nur.22228

Kjærvik SL, Bushman BJ. The link between narcissism and aggression: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2021;147(5):477-503. doi:10.1037/bul0000323

Linton DK, Power JL. The personality traits of workplace bullies are often shared by their victims: is there a dark side to victims? Personality and Individual Differences. 2013;54(6):738-743. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.026

MacCurtain S, Murphy C, O’Sullivan M, et al. To stand back or step in? Exploring the responses of employees who observe workplace bullying. Nursing Inquiry. 2018;25(1):e12207. doi:10.1111/nin.12207

Rosander M, Nielsen MB. Being nice, outgoing, curious, organized, and calm—protective or eroded by workplace bullying? Reciprocal effects of personality and bullying, and mechanisms to explain the associations. Frontiers in Psychology. 2026;16:1740837. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1740837

Sui SX, Malik S, Tiliopoulos N, et al. Dark Triad traits and workplace bullying: a systematic review and meta-analysis of personality, power, and psychosocial safety. Frontiers in Psychology. 2026;17:1738277. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1738277