Unmasking organizational factors contributing to bullying behaviors in public-sector workplaces: insights from the Australian public sector

Workplace bullying has seen a marked increase across global workplaces, leading to a corresponding rise in research studying this phenomenon (Plimmer et al., 2022). Data reveal that incidents of bullying in the public sector have consistently remained high across many countries (Venetoklis and Kettunen, 2016). For instance, a 2021 survey revealed that in the Victorian Public Sector (VPS), Australia, 17% of employees had experienced bullying in the preceding 12 months (VPSC, 2021). In 2010, the cost of workplace bullying to the Australian economy was estimated to be between AUD 6–36 billion (USD 5.5–33 billion at the 2010 rate) per year (Productivity Commission, 2010), with recent scrutiny suggesting those figures to be significant underestimates (Ballard and Bozin, 2023). However, there remains a significant lack of empirical research focused specifically on the public sector to identify the factors behind these bullying incidents (Nguyen et al., 2019). The sensitivity and subjectivity surrounding bullying incidents make it challenging to gather authentic, firsthand information from officials to identify the factors causing bullying in public sector organizations (Hodgins et al., 2022). To address this gap, the present study collects experiential data from public sector managers to explore the organizational factors that may induce bullying behaviors within public sector workplaces.

There are two distinct hypotheses that categorize factors assumed to predict bullying at work (Ervasti et al., 2023). The individual-disposition hypothesis suggests that individual characteristics predispose some individuals to bullying or to being a bully, whereas the work-environment hypothesis suggests that bullying is a consequence of organizational and structural factors (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018). However, most of the existing research on bullying in the public sector has centered on the individual-disposition hypothesis, focusing on subjective factors such as an individual’s traits, values, and ethical standards, leader’s prerogatives, aggressive attitudes, and bureaucratic mindsets (Nguyen et al., 2019; Omari and Paull, 2015; Venetoklis and Kettunen, 2016). In contrast, the impact of organizational factors, such as organizational culture, hierarchical structure, policies, and management practices, remains under-researched.

Given the transformation in public sector organizations after the introduction of New Public Management (NPM) (Waheduzzaman, 2019) and the interplay between NPM and workplace bullying (El Ghaziri et al., 2021), there is a need for more scrutiny of the organizational factors that may trigger bullying in the sector (Tummers et al., 2016). Therefore, a shift in research focus from subjective factors to organizational factors is important to uncover the underlying organizational dynamics that may contribute to workplace bullying in public sector organizations today. Moreover, as the public sector in many countries – such as Australia – is undergoing rapid change (Kleizen et al., 2023), which can itself act as a trigger for bullying, there is a need for updated research on the evolving organizational drivers of bullying in this context.

Existing studies though sometimes explore organizational factors they treat different organizational elements such as governance, managerial, and structural elements in isolation rather than as interconnected dimensions influencing workplace bullying (Hurley et al., 2016; Hodgins et al., 2022; El Ghaziri et al., 2021). This gap is particularly critical in the context of NPM reforms, which have reshaped governance, managerial, and structural elements in the public sector workplaces but remain understudied in relation to workplace bullying (Mawdsley and Lewis, 2017). As a result of this siloed research, many organizations adopt fragmented, element-specific strategies – focused on governance, managerial, or structural aspects – rather than implementing a holistic, organization-wide approach to addressing workplace bullying (Hodgins et al., 2022; Kleizen et al., 2023). To address this gap, the present study systematically investigates these organizational factors through a tripartite institutional framework, providing a more holistic understanding of bullying in public sector organizations.

Since 2004, the Victorian Public Sector Commission (VPSC) in Australia has been conducting an annual opinion survey of all VPS employees (VPSC, 2021). The survey collects data on the employees’ views of various aspects of public sector values, including the prevalence of bullying behaviors that have been either directly experienced or observed by public sector employees in the previous year. Concurrently, between 2004 and 2021, the VPSC has also conducted follow-up research into bullying statistics based on the survey data. These surveys have consistently identified a high percentage of VPS employees reporting experiences of bullying in the workplace (VPSC, 2021). Therefore, the VPS would be a good case study to investigate why bullying incidents remain high despite constant monitoring measures in its organizations.

The main objective of the paper is to address a vital question: What are the main organizational factors that trigger bullying behaviors in public sector organizations? In other words, this paper aims to shed light on the persistently high levels of bullying behaviors within VPS workplaces and to explore the specific organizational factors that contribute to such behaviors. Data for this study were collected through 21 semi-structured interviews with managers and senior leaders drawn from 13 different Victorian government departments and agencies (in Australia), representing various levels of the VPS. The VPS serves as a valuable case for examining workplace bullying due to its size, governance structure, and exposure to NPM reforms (VPSC, 2024). As one of Australia’s largest public sector employers, the VPS operates under policies and management practices that reflect broader trends in public administration (VPSC, 2024), making its findings applicable beyond the Victorian context.

The paper begins with a conceptualization of bullying before examining the factors that contribute to bullying in the public sector. We then outline the research approach, followed by an analysis of the empirical data. The concluding section summarizes the findings and explores the organizational factors that trigger bullying in public sector organizations.

Workplace bullying, also referred to as workplace aggression or mobbing, involves the repeated and sustained mistreatment, abuse, or harassment of one or more employees by another individual or a group of employees (Glambek et al., 2018; Spagnoli and Balducci, 2017). Researchers highlight three key components that define bullying: it targets an individual or group, occurs repeatedly, and poses a threat to health or safety (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018; Spagnoli and Balducci, 2017). In terms of being systematic, bullying is not limited to overtly aggressive or physical actions; even more subtle behaviors, such as excessive monitoring, unwarranted criticism, or hindering promotions, can also be considered bullying (Hoel et al., 2020). The deliberate and repetitive nature of such behavior leads to serious consequences including psychological distress, health problems, financial losses, increased turnover, decreased morale, reduced productivity, and diminished loyalty (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018). This discussion underscores that bullying is not only a subjective experience but is also shaped by institutional contexts and organizational dynamics.

For a long time, the public sector has been characterized by hierarchical decision-making, bureaucratic rigidity, and extensive regulatory oversight (Harrison and Baird, 2015). However, with the advent of NPM, private-sector principles – such as decentralization, performance-based accountability, and market-driven efficiency – have increasingly shaped public sector operations (Mawdsley and Lewis, 2017). While NPM has introduced greater flexibility and efficiency, it has also led to unintended consequences, including increased workplace stress, power imbalances, and the weakening of traditional safeguards against negative behaviors like bullying (Omari and Paull, 2015). Therefore, these organizational factors require further scrutiny regarding their impact on workplace bullying.

Building on previous research and discourse on workplace bullying (Hoel et al., 2020), we categorized the organizational factors influencing employee behavior into three main groups: governance, managerial, and structural elements.

Governance Elements: Governance mechanisms play a crucial role in shaping workplace behavior by establishing accountability structures, ethical guidelines, and transparency in decision-making (Hoel et al., 2020). Under NPM, accountability has shifted from rigid procedural compliance toward performance-based evaluation, which places greater pressure on employees and managers to meet targets, sometimes at the expense of ethical considerations. While accountability mechanisms are designed to ensure responsible decision-making, weak enforcement can create environments where misconduct, including workplace bullying, goes unchecked (Tummers et al., 2016). The decentralization of decision-making under NPM has given managers greater autonomy; while this can enhance responsiveness and efficiency, it can also lead to inconsistent decision-making, favoritism, and abuse of power (Omari and Paull, 2015). Additionally, a lack of transparency in decision-making can erode trust among colleagues, increasing workplace tensions and fostering negative behaviors (Webster, 2016). Similarly, when ethical codes and conflict resolution mechanisms are weak, employees may feel disempowered to challenge unethical behaviors, further reinforcing a culture where bullying and coercion are normalized (Hurley et al., 2016).

Managerial Elements: Public sector managerial practices have been significantly reshaped by NPM’s emphasis on efficiency, competition, and performance measurement (Tummers et al., 2016). While ethical leadership and open communication can help prevent workplace bullying, many public sector environments struggle with managerial constraints that make it difficult to address these issues effectively (Kleizen et al., 2023). Research highlights that bullying behaviors are often linked to systemic pressures such as high workloads, role ambiguity, and rigid performance management systems (Hodgins et al., 2022; Venetoklis and Kettunen, 2016). In public organizations, managers often navigate conflicting demands from policymakers, regulatory agencies, and service recipients, forcing them to make difficult trade-offs between efficiency and employee well-being (Hutchinson and Jackson, 2015). NPM reforms have intensified these pressures by introducing competitive performance evaluations and individual accountability measures, which can inadvertently create a culture of fear and workplace aggression (Mawdsley and Lewis, 2017). Moreover, when managers are evaluated primarily on cost-cutting and service efficiency, they may resort to autocratic leadership styles, reinforcing power imbalances and creating environments where bullying is used as a tool for enforcing discipline and compliance (Webster, 2016).

Structural Elements: The bureaucratic structure of the public sector, combined with its susceptibility to political pressures and frequent policy shifts, create a volatile work environment where workplace bullying can emerge (Harrison and Baird, 2015). The introduction of NPM reforms have exacerbated these dynamics by imposing private-sector performance models on public institutions, often emphasizing cost efficiency, market competition, and measurable outputs (Jansson and Parding, 2011). While such reforms have aimed to improve service delivery, they have also introduced stressors such as job insecurity, work intensification, and increased competition among employees – conditions that can foster workplace bullying (El Ghaziri et al., 2021; Hutchinson and Jackson, 2015). Performance management systems, designed to improve productivity, often rely on rigid monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that, if misused, can become tools for exerting excessive pressure on employees (De Cieri et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019). Furthermore, hierarchical power structures in public organizations, where authority is concentrated among senior managers and executives, can discourage employees from reporting misconduct due to fear of retaliation (Hutchinson and Jackson, 2015).

The discussion above highlights that bullying in public sector organizations is deeply rooted in governance, managerial and structural elements (Hoel et al., 2020). Based on the above literature review, the organizational factors that contribute to bullying behaviors in public sector organizations can be broadly categorized into three groups, as illustrated in the following Figure 1.

The People Matter survey across the VPS organizations asked respondents to reflect on their experiences of bullying behavior within the past 12 months. In 2021, the VPSC conducted a review of 5 out of the last 6 People Matter survey results (excluding the 2020 results, which were an amended survey targeting well-being due to COVID-19). The summary of the results is presented in Table 1 below.

The data indicate that public sector employees in Victoria, Australia, continue to experience bullying in their workplaces. In recent years, the VPS has undergone significant changes in governance, management, and organizational structure (VPSC, 2024), which may be linked to these persistent bullying incidents. Further research is needed to identify the specific factors within VPS organizations that contribute to workplace bullying.

This investigation utilized a qualitative research approach since the focus was on the lived experiences of the VPS employees, specifically their views on the factors that contribute to bullying in their workplaces. Thus, a qualitative approach allowed for a more in-depth understanding of this behavioral phenomenon (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008).

The interview approach was employed to investigate the experiences of managers and senior leaders as targets and witnesses of bullying incidents within the VPS. Interviewing these managers was beneficial because they have worked at different levels, at various times, and in different departments, allowing them to share insights and opinions that may not be available from junior staff or those with limited work experience. They were also expected to discuss trends and changes in bullying behaviors within the VPS. According to Patton (2002), a smaller number of interviewees and cases is most suitable when aiming for a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon. To ensure a rich and diverse data set, 21 individuals selected from 13 different Victorian government departments and agencies that were part of the VPS between 2015 and 2020 were interviewed for this study. The first interviewee was contacted by the lead researcher, and subsequent interviewees were recruited using a snowball sampling approach.

The data for this study were collected through semi-structured individual interviews. Denzin and Lincoln (2008) argue that the use of semi-structured interview allows interviewers to delve deeper into the subject through follow-up questions. These interviews were conducted face-to-face, with 16 taking place at the interviewee’s workplace and five at off-site locations at the request of the participants. The changes in interview locations were made to ensure that respondents felt more comfortable speaking freely, particularly due to the sensitivity of the bullying behaviors being discussed. All interviews were scheduled at times convenient for the interviewees. The interview data were collected by the first author as part of her PhD research, which was successfully conferred in 2021. Before data collection, ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the respective university, and participants were approached following ethical guidelines.

All interviewees were current or former employees from different public sector departments (Division 4 of Part 3) including the justice department (Division 3 of Part 6) (see note ^[2] for details) and had decision-making authority in their respective roles. Details of the participants are presented in Table 2.

All participants were initially approached by the first author via phone call and then followed up with a consent form, which was issued to them before the date of the interview and sent to their work email addresses. Interviews ranged in duration from 27 to 116 min, with an average of 51 min per participant. Each interviewee was asked a standard set of questions, including: “Have you ever experienced or witnessed a situation of bullying in your workplace?” This question was then probed further with follow-up questions, such as “Which factors do you think trigger bullying behaviors in the workplace?” “Were these problems originating from managerial decisions and the decision-making process?” “Were these problems stemming from organizational policies, procedures, or culture?” A situation of data saturation was observed, when no new themes or insights on workplace bullying emerged from the interviews (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008), which began to occur after approximately the 20th participant.

This study employs Reflexive Thematic Analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2022), emphasizing the researcher’s continuous reflection on the research process and interpretation of the data. The lead researcher, having extensive experience working in the Australian public sector, utilized her background to reflect on the interviewees’ experiences of workplace bullying. A second researcher, with public sector experience from another country, also incorporated his reflections, while the third researcher, who has expertise in bullying research, applied theoretical reflections to the interviewees’ responses. This reflexive approach allows for the co-construction of meaning between the researcher and the data, promoting a more refined understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Since the literature review suggests that the reality of bullying behaviors is critical realism, which acknowledges that while an external reality exists, our understanding of the incidents is influenced by organizational environments and human interpretations (Brett and Wheeler, 2021), reflexive thematic analysis does not merely assume that reality can be accessed directly through interviews. It recognizes the role of the researcher in connecting interviewees’ interpretations, organizational context, and personality in shaping the findings. By continuously reflecting on their knowledge, biases, and assumptions, researchers engage in a process that helps acknowledge how their reflections shape the interpretation of data (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Thus, the reflexive approach enhances the richness of the analysis, allowing for nuanced insights to workplace bullying in public sector organizations.

This study follows Braun and Clarke’s (2022) six-step process for Reflexive Thematic Analysis:

1. Familiarization with the Data: All three researchers initially read and re-read one transcript to become familiar with the interview data. Since the lead researcher conducted the interviews, this step was critical for the other two researchers to immerse themselves in the background, context, and patterns of the interviewees’ responses. This process allowed for a thorough understanding of the content and deeper engagement with the data.

2. Generating Initial Codes: The lead researcher initially created codes using a transcript that captured key features of the data systematically. Her reflexivity, informed by her public sector experience, played a crucial role in generating these initial codes. The second researcher then reviewed these codes, incorporating his reflections based on his own experiences. The third researcher applied his theoretical understanding of bullying to finalize the coding process.

3. Searching for Themes: Each researcher then read a total of seven transcripts, identifying codes that aligned with the initial coding phase. They collaborated to explore emerging themes, such as organizational culture, structure, changes, and management processes. In this phase, all identified codes were grouped into coherent themes that encapsulated the key organizational dynamics contributing to bullying.

4. Reviewing Themes: The researchers checked the initial themes against the coded extracts and the entire dataset to ensure they formed coherent patterns. This step involved refining and re-evaluating themes to ensure they accurately reflected the data and were well-supported by the evidence. Through practical and theoretical reflexivity, researchers removed some themes that did not constitute bullying. For example, themes related to one-off harassment incidents were removed from the bullying themes.

5. Defining and Naming Themes: In this stage, themes were further refined, and clear, concise definitions and names were assigned to each theme, providing clarity for the findings that would follow.

6. Writing the Report: The final phase involved composing the thematic analysis, which is presented in the findings section of this study. This section offers a concise, coherent, logical, and engaging narrative of the data, exploring both within-theme and across-theme patterns.

In all the above stages, reflexivity was embedded in each step of the analysis, from initial coding to the development of themes. The coding scheme was developed based on prior literature, specifically drawing from the summarized organizational factors presented in Figure 1. Discrepancies in code interpretation were initially discussed between the first two researchers. If disagreements persisted, the third researcher was consulted to provide an independent assessment. The final coding framework was established through an iterative process, ensuring that all themes accurately reflected the data. While data collection was conducted by one researcher, the analysis was performed by another to minimize potential bias in data interpretation. These measures enhance the generalizability of the findings, making the study replicable in other public sector contexts.

This section continues the examination of the drivers of bullying behavior, focusing on the experiences of the interviewees within the VPS. The aim of this section is to draw from the data on the workplace context, the factors that enable bullying behaviors to flourish within VPS organizations, and the unique features of the context that perpetuate these behaviors.

When asked about the organizational factors that trigger bullying, most interviewees highlighted organizational culture as a key influence. Specifically, they referred to a culture that fails to take bullying incidents seriously or punish the perpetrators, which in turn fosters the growth of negative behaviors in the workplace. Some interviewees noted that the flexibility in how bullying incidents are handled internally allows such behaviors to spread across the organization. One interviewee elaborated on the role of top management, describing it as crucial in enabling bullying. They explained that when top managers fail to address bullying, it perpetuates a toxic workplace culture. An interviewee stated:

The interviewees also highlighted that staff often weigh the benefits a bully brings to the organization against the costs of addressing their behavior. If the benefit is considered high and the organization’s willingness to address the behavior is low, then the behavior may be tolerated. In response to this, one participant explained:

This analysis highlights key themes from the interviewees, particularly the emphasis on organizational culture and the importance of “living the values” at all levels of the organization, including calling out unacceptable behaviors. They stressed the need for management at all levels to model the desired behaviors and establish a clear organizational stance on what is unacceptable. Interviewees identified bullying behaviors as being heavily influenced by organizational culture, specifically the discretion of managers. They described managers’ actions as signaling to staff what behaviors are acceptable and, more importantly, which behaviors are not tolerated.

The interviewees emphasized the theme of ambiguity and tension at the intersection of private and public organizational cultures. Many noted a dissonance between their private sector experiences and the realities of working in the public sector. The VPS was reshaped by the Australian Federal government’s 1983 implementation of NPM, shifting Senior Executive Service roles from permanent positions to three-year contractual arrangements (VPSC, 2024). One interviewee referenced a senior manager with extensive private sector experience and over five years in a large department within the VPS, describing the tension between the values internalized from the private sector and those expected in the public sector:

Another interviewee further explained that, in an attempt to maintain the private sector approach, newly appointed managers from private industry tended to bring in hires from their former private sector networks. These managers often protected their own recruits, and these new hires, also with private sector backgrounds, became aggressive and dominant, overshadowing the staff who were already present in the public sector organization. One interviewee expressed:

As a result, one group often becomes favored by top management, exerting dominance over others due to their connections with those in power. This dominance creates physical and social isolation for other groups. Thus, the group closely aligned with top management has been identified as a major contributor to bullying, including destabilizing behaviors and the isolation of other groups.

The acceptance of bullying behavior becomes ingrained in the organizational culture, particularly when those in higher positions are perceived as having the entitlement to bully subordinates without facing any consequences. This acceptance fosters an environment where bullying is normalized and perpetuated. One interviewee shared how they were briefed not to raise their voice against any bullying incidents:

This statement suggests that employees are often pressured to tolerate bullying behaviors as part of the organizational culture, implying that perpetrators may not be held accountable. In some cases, top management reinforces this by indirectly signaling that aggressive behaviors should be accepted, possibly due to their belief in their [senior management’s] superior knowledge or authority. One interviewee recounted her experience, explaining how management’s behavior set a tone of aggression that was expected to be tolerated by all employees:

This reflects the traditional bureaucratic belief that “the boss is always right,” highlighting the persistence of this cultural issue within the public sector – where challenging bullying behaviors is discouraged, and those in authority remain immune to allegations. One interviewee recalled a situation where they considered lodging a bullying allegation against a manager but ultimately chose not to, recognizing the futility of such action:

Even if challenged, there are consequences, such as isolation, which can take the form of a subtle yet impactful type of bullying. For instance, when a bullying incident occurs, it is often the case that the perpetrator or victim is simply moved from one department to another, without any real punishment for the perpetrator:

This observation shows that the tacit acceptance of leaders’ bullying tendencies, coupled with a culture of impunity among senior management, creates an environment where such behaviors thrive unchecked. This illustrates a long-standing practice of authoritative leniency, where such behavior is tacitly tolerated, thus fueling further instances of bullying due to its unchecked nature.

Top managers often operate within a culture of mutual support, where they overlook each other’s negative behaviors, fostering a power dynamic that normalizes misconduct and perpetuates an “us versus them” mentality. This dynamic resembles tribalism, where senior leaders form a cohesive group, detached from lower-level staff, vying for control within their respective spheres of influence. One interviewee emphasized how managers fight for their “patch,” revealing a culture of competition and territorialism:

Another interviewee who has had a lengthy (27 years) experience within the VPS, a significant proportion in leadership roles, raised the conscious or perhaps unconscious assessment that staff make, particularly if the bully is in a higher-level role. They describe how difficult it is to challenge the behavior. They point to the power relationship as making it very hard “to stand up to them, because it’s – you know, there’s a power relationship there, and we have to recognize that’s part of the, – that’s part of the consideration or part of the equation” (Interviewee 13). This implies staff weigh the options and consider the consequences of challenging someone who is at a higher level within the organizational hierarchy. Another interviewee, a senior leader with a medium-sized department, with a career within the VPS spanning 28 years, described the drivers for bullying behavior intricately linked to the maintenance of personal power:

These insights underscore a systemic problem within public sector organizations, where senior leaders prioritize cultivating and perpetuating their power base over fostering a culture of respect, fairness, and accountability. The drive to retain relevance, uphold power bases, and assert dominance contributes to a toxic work environment where bullying and power plays thrive. The longstanding practice of top management supporting each other has created a taken-for-granted belief that top managers are somehow immune from accountability for bullying behaviors. This mentality and related customary practices thus escalate bullying behaviors in the VPS.

Interviewees perceived the organizational culture regarding performance management as central to why bullying behaviors occur and persist within the workplace. One interviewee who worked within a small integrity body in the VPS reflected on the culture of bullying and harassment and its link to performance management: “I suppose I look at these – they’re different things – performance management versus bullying and harassment – but in terms of the culture around them they can be very similar” (Interviewee 12). Interviewees described a level of cynicism about the evaluation of performance and the accountability for both the delivery of outcomes and the behavior exhibited over the review period to achieve those outcomes. One interviewee reflected on this achievement culture, acknowledging that while there may be measures for leaders’ performance over the review period, there was skepticism regarding the weight given during the assessment process:

Performance management is not limited to the performance review process. Under the Enterprise Agreement, clause 24 (Management of Unsatisfactory Work Performance, the Victorian Public Sector Commission, 2021), there are detailed steps that managers are required to undertake to work with staff members to address any performance gaps and work towards meeting all performance expectations. Interviewees described departments ‘shifting’ managers who were not performing or had been identified as demonstrating inappropriate behavior, without following the clause 24 steps:

Interviewees emphasized the importance of performance management in the prevalence of bullying behaviors within the workplace. They discussed the performance levels, the weight placed on goal achievement by the organization, and the extent to which negative behaviors are addressed, and bullying behaviors are challenged by those in management positions.

The changing workforce and structures within departments are a constant within the VPS. Staff numbers continually fluctuate, with periods of significant growth, and periods of austerity in which departments are required to significantly reduce staff numbers. The need to manage staff numbers was described by an interviewee as leading to bullying behaviors:

Several interviewees observed a culture of moving people out without examining the reasons behind staff turnover. They pointed out that the organization did not seek insights into why employees were leaving, with no accountability on senior leaders for managing their teams during times of organizational change. In the absence of exit interviews and without addressing why people were departing, top management was perceived to resort to bullying as a downsizing tool. As one senior leader described:

Interviewees also noted that a lack of personal accountability, particularly during organizational change in the public sector, contributes to these bullying behaviors. One participant emphasized that individual actions, rather than institutional policies, are central to the issue:

The analysis of this data suggests that unregulated change management fosters an environment ripe for bullying during times of downsizing. The lack of managerial accountability, particularly in retaining favored employees while bullying others out, leads to a fractured organization. This division, in turn, creates toxic relationships within teams and across departments. Interviewees noted that this process can pit individuals against each other, further exacerbating bullying behaviors within the organization.

This study examines how organizational factors drive bullying in public sector workplaces, revealing that governance, managerial, and structural elements play critical roles. Governance issues, particularly around accountability, transparency, and inclusion, significantly contribute to bullying. Notably, transparency failures manifest when managers use bullying as a covert downsizing tactic, pressuring employees to resign instead of following ethical redundancy processes. This allows management to evade formal restructuring costs and legal accountability, a finding that extends prior research on bullying during organizational change (Kleizen et al., 2023; Spagnoli and Balducci, 2017) by showing how senior managers actively deploy bullying as a strategic tool. Additionally, favoritism, such as newly appointed executives hiring from personal networks, creates exclusive sub-groups, fostering power imbalances and marginalization that heighten bullying risks, aligning with Soylu’s (2011) findings on loyalty-based favoritism.

Managerial factors further exacerbate bullying through power dynamics, performance pressure, and NPM influences. Senior executives often form protective sub-groups, a phenomenon we term “power tribalism,” where they shield each other from scrutiny, enabling a culture of impunity for bullying. This builds on Garvey and Mackenzie’s (2024) work on coercive environments in the UK public sector by highlighting how such sub-groups resist accountability. NPM-driven performance pressures also prioritize results over well-being, with high-performing bullies often tolerated while victims are transferred or replaced. Frequent leadership turnover under NPM reforms and political pressure adds to organizational instability, fueling competition and enabling aggressive leadership styles that trigger bullying. While NPM aimed to enhance managerial capability, decentralize control, and improve financial performance, it appears to have induced bullying behaviors in many public sector settings – a pattern also observed in the Vietnamese public sector (Nguyen et al., 2019).

Structurally, cultural clashes between bureaucratic traditions and private-sector managerial styles introduced through NPM create an unstable environment that fosters bullying, extending the findings of previous research (Mawdsley and Lewis, 2017; Omari and Paull, 2015). Additionally, political influences, where leadership changes are driven by performance and budget pressures, contribute to organizational instability, further exacerbating bullying behaviors (Kleizen et al., 2023). While a volatile structure can encourage bullying, this research also finds that rigid hierarchical structures in public sector organizations perpetuate a “boss is always right” mentality, which discourages employees from reporting mistreatment due to fears of retaliation. This dynamic, breaches the psychological contract, erodes trust, and cultivates bullying, a phenomenon also observed in the Irish public sector (Hodgins et al., 2022).

Overall, bullying in public sector organizations is a systemic issue rooted in governance, managerial, and structural dynamics, rather than merely individual behavior. Addressing it demands robust management mechanisms, structural reforms, and a cultural shift toward ethical governance.

This study provides actionable insights for public sector leaders aiming to address workplace bullying. The findings highlight that bullying is often a systemic issue, driven by governance failures such as lack of transparency and accountability, as well as managerial practices like favoritism and power tribalism. Practically, public sector organizations can implement stronger governance mechanisms to combat these issues. For instance, transparent recruitment processes and decision-making frameworks can reduce favoritism and the formation of exclusive managerial sub-groups. Additionally, addressing the performance-driven culture shaped by NPM reforms is critical. Leaders should prioritize employee well-being alongside efficiency, ensuring that high performers are not excused for bullying behavior. The study also suggests that instead of transferring or replacing victims, organizations should focus on holding perpetrators accountable, fostering a culture of ethical conduct. These practical steps can help mitigate bullying and create a healthier workplace environment in public sector organizations.

This study advances public management research by offering an original organizational-level analysis of bullying within the public sector. While existing literature has predominantly emphasized individual-level factors, such as employee morale, mentoring, and ethics training (Nguyen et al., 2019; Venetoklis and Kettunen, 2016), this research shifts the focus to organizational dynamics. It deepens the theoretical understanding of how power dynamics, leadership transitions, and workplace culture interplay to shape bullying behaviors in public sector settings. By highlighting these systemic influences, the study enriches the conceptual elements of institutional framework, moving beyond individual-centric explanations to underscore the role of organizational structures in perpetuating or mitigating workplace bullying.

The study focused on VPS employees in managerial, or director roles between the VPS 5 and Senior Executive Service bands 1, 2, and 3. Future research that includes both managers and subordinates may offer a better understanding of the cultural factors that trigger bullying in the public sector. Additionally, the study was limited to employees in Victoria and did not include staff in other Australian states, nor other countries. Including a wider sample of participants could have provided further insight to the drivers of bullying behaviors in different contexts and organizations. Furthermore, a longitudinal, quantitative, or mixed-method study could provide deeper insights.

This study makes a significant contribution to public management by examining workplace bullying through an organizational lens, focusing on governance, managerial, and structural factors within the public sector. It emphasizes that bullying is not simply an interpersonal issue but a systemic problem that requires comprehensive reforms. Specifically, NPM initiatives, aimed at enhancing citizen service and improving financial performance, need to be better managed to minimize bullying. Public sector leaders must adopt transparent governance mechanisms, address power imbalances, and balance performance demands with employee well-being to reduce bullying.

Effective anti-bullying interventions should aim to prevent the emergence of exclusionary managerial factions by fostering transparent recruitment processes, equitable decision-making, and fair power distribution. However, the study also acknowledges potential unintended consequences of stringent anti-bullying measures. Overly rigid enforcement could inadvertently discourage managers from addressing legitimate performance concerns due to fears of being labeled as bullies (Hutchinson and Jackson, 2015). To address this, public sector organizations should adopt a balanced approach, integrating anti-bullying policies with broader cultural and structural reforms. This includes aligning change management and performance evaluation mechanisms with efforts to resolve bullying, ensuring that organizational reforms support both employee well-being and operational effectiveness.