bullying case study uk

Tell us whether you accept cookies

We would like to use cookies to collect information about how you use ons.gov.uk .

We use this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve our services.

You’ve accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Hide

• Release calendar
• Methodology

Online bullying in England and Wales: year ending March 2020

Estimates of the prevalence and nature of online bullying among children using data from the 10- to 15-year-olds’ Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).

This is the latest release. View previous releases

Contact: Email Nick Stripe

Release date: 16 November 2020

Next release: To be announced

Table of contents

• Main points
• Prevalence of bullying
• Nature of online bullying
• Bullying and school
• Perception and impact of online bullying
• Online bullying data
• Measuring the data
• Strengths and limitations
• Related links

Print this Statistical bulletin

Download as PDF

1. Main points

There is no legal definition of bullying, but it is often described as behaviour that hurts someone else, physically or emotionally, and can happen anywhere - at school, at home or online.

Around one in five children aged 10 to 15 years in England and Wales (19%) experienced at least one type of online bullying behaviour in the year ending March 2020, equivalent to 764,000 children.

More than half (52%) of those children who experienced online bullying behaviours 1 said they would not describe these behaviours as bullying, and one in four (26%) did not report their experiences to anyone.

Being called names, sworn at or insulted and having nasty messages about them sent to them were the two most common online bullying behaviour types, experienced by 10% of all children aged 10 to 15 years.

Nearly three out of four children (72%) who had experienced an online bullying behaviour experienced at least some of it at school or during school time.

Statistician's comment

"Greater use of smartphones, social media and networking applications means online bullying can follow a child anywhere they go. Using new data from the crime survey we can see that around 1 in 5 children between the ages of 10 to 15 had experienced some form of online bullying in the previous 12 months.

"This compares with 2 in 5 children who experienced bullying in person, and whilst these data were collected before the coronavirus pandemic, children’s isolation at home and increased time spent on the internet is likely to have had a substantial impact on the split between real world and cyber bullying."

Sophie Sanders from the Office for National Statistics Centre for Crime and Justice.

Finding help

If you believe a child is in immediate danger, contact the police on 999 or 112. If the child is not in immediate danger but you are still concerned, or you or someone you know is experiencing bullying, you can contact:

the NSPCC helpline on 0808 800 5000 or by emailing [email protected]

Childline on 0800 1111

your local child protection services

Notes: Main points

• In the survey, children were first asked to identify any nasty things that had happened to them or been done to them from a list of behaviours commonly recognised as bullying. Children were later separately asked whether or not they would describe their experiences mentioned as "bullying".

2. Prevalence of bullying

Figure 1: almost one in five children experienced at least one type of online bullying behaviour in the previous 12 months, proportion of children aged 10 to 15 years who experienced online bullying behaviours in the previous 12 months, by type of bullying behaviour, england and wales, year ending march 2020.

Source: Office for National Statistics – Crime Survey for England and Wales

• Percentages may not sum to 100 as respondents may have given more than one answer.

Download this chart Figure 1: Almost one in five children experienced at least one type of online bullying behaviour in the previous 12 months

In the year ending March 2020, an estimated one out of five children aged 10 to 15 years in England and Wales experienced at least one type of online bullying behaviour (19%). This equates to approximately 764,000 children.

Online bullying has been increasingly enabled by wider access to the internet and greater use of smartphones, social media and networking applications. By comparison, twice as many children (38%) reported that they had experienced a bullying behaviour in person. A smaller percentage experienced a bullying behaviour by a telephone or mobile phone call (4%). As some children experienced multiple types of bullying behaviour, overall 42% of children aged 10 to 15 years experienced some form of bullying behaviour in the year ending March 2020.

There was no significant difference in the proportion of girls (20%) and boys (17%) who had experienced an online bullying behaviour. However, the prevalence of online bullying was significantly higher for children with a long-term illness or disability (26%) than those without (18%). Asian or Asian British children were also significantly less likely to have experienced an online bullying behaviour (6%) than White children (21%), Black or Black British children (18%) and Mixed Ethnic group children (19%).

As the data used for this publication relate to the period prior to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and lockdown, with children's isolation at home and increased time spent on the internet, the split between in person and online bullying is likely to have changed substantially during this period.

Out of all children who had experienced a form of online bullying behaviour, slightly less than half (48%) stated that they had experienced two or more types of online bullying behaviours.

3. Nature of online bullying

Figure 2: being called names, sworn at and insulted was the most frequently experienced online bullying behaviour, frequency of online bullying behaviours experienced by children aged 10 to 15 years in the previous 12 months, by type of bullying behaviour, england and wales, year ending march 2020.

• Types of online bullying behaviour with an unweighted base of less than 50 were excluded from this figure.

Download this chart Figure 2: Being called names, sworn at and insulted was the most frequently experienced online bullying behaviour

The number of times online bullying behaviours were experienced varied between different types. Being called names, sworn at and insulted was the most frequently experienced online bullying behaviour, with 20% of children who experienced this type of behaviour stating they experienced it every day or a few times a week. An additional 20% of children experienced it once or twice a week.

Experiencing bullying behaviours through being sent messages, images or videos was the method with the highest percentage across all types of online bullying behaviours ( Appendix table 6 ). Other methods of carrying out online bullying behaviours included posting online messages, images or videos about children, contacting children in a chatroom, and through online games. The percentages for these methods varied for each type of online bullying behaviour.

Figure 3: For some types of online bullying behaviours experienced in the previous 12 months, the majority were carried out in private

Privacy level of messages received by children aged 10 to 15 years who experienced online bullying behaviours, by type of bullying behaviour, england and wales, year ending march 2020.

Download this chart Figure 3: For some types of online bullying behaviours experienced in the previous 12 months, the majority were carried out in private

Children who experienced an online bullying behaviour through messages being sent to them, posted online or in chatrooms were asked whether these were private messages to them, group messages or something that anyone could see online.

Private messages were used more frequently for types of bullying that do not necessarily involve any other children except the victim, such as someone calling them names, swearing at them or insulting them and nasty messages about them being sent to them.

As online bullying behaviours by private messages are only experienced by the victim, it is more likely that they will go unnoticed unless someone is told.

Group messages were more frequently used for types of online bullying behaviour that mainly involve other people such as nasty messages about children being passed around or posted where others could see and children being left out of or excluded from a group or activity on purpose.

Children were also asked whether the online bullying behaviours that they experienced were carried out by the same person or same group of people. Slightly over half of the children (51%) answered that the online bullying behaviours they experienced were carried out by the same people. Just over a third (36%) answered that they were not carried out by the same people, while 13% did not know.

4. Bullying and school

School has a central role in bullying. It is the place where children spend a lot of their time daily and interact with other children who may display bullying behaviours. It can be a place where bullying takes place but also a place where children may seek direct help from their teachers or school staff.

In the year ending March 2020, 7 out of 10 (70%) children aged 10 to 15 years who experienced an online bullying behaviour said this was by someone from their school.

Figure 4: Nearly three out of four children (72%) who experienced an online bullying behaviour in the previous 12 months experienced at least some of it at school or during school time

Percentage of children experiencing online bullying behaviours at school or during school time, england and wales, year ending march 2020.

Download this chart Figure 4: Nearly three out of four children (72%) who experienced an online bullying behaviour in the previous 12 months experienced at least some of it at school or during school time

Another important finding concerning schools is children’s perception of how well their school deals with bullying. More than two-thirds of children (68%) believed that their school deals with bullying very well or quite well, while a quarter (25%) believed that their school does not deal with bullying very well or not at all well. A minority (6%) answered that bullying is not a problem at their schools.

These figures varied depending on whether children experienced at least one online bullying behaviour in the previous year. For children who had experienced online bullying, the percentage saying that their school does not deal with bullying very well or not well at all was more than double (44%) that for children who had not (21%).  

5. Perception and impact of online bullying

Around 7 out of 10 children were emotionally affected by the online bullying behaviours experienced.

Bullying, among other factors, can have an impact on a child’s emotional well-being . For the year ending March 2020, 22% of children aged 10 to 15 years who had experienced a type of online bullying behaviour said that they were emotionally affected a lot by these incidents. A further 47% said that they were a little affected and 32% said that they were not affected at all. This means that almost 7 out of 10 children (68%) were emotionally affected to an extent by the online bullying behaviours experienced.

An estimated one in three children (32%) 1 who experienced online bullying behaviours reported it to their teachers, and 18% reported it to another member of staff. However, children most commonly reported their online bullying experiences to parents (56%), while 19% reported it to other family members. Helplines were used by 1% of children to report online bullying behaviours they had experienced, while 15% of children reported these experiences to someone else.

Slightly over one in four children (26%) did not report their online bullying experienced. There is a significant difference between boys and girls, with 34% of boys not reporting these experiences to anyone compared with 15% of girls.

Figure 5: The most common reason for not reporting experiences of online bullying behaviours to anyone was that the victim did not think it was important

Reasons for children aged 10 to 15 years not reporting online bullying behaviours experienced in the previous 12 months, england and wales, year ending march 2020.

Download this chart Figure 5: The most common reason for not reporting experiences of online bullying behaviours to anyone was that the victim did not think it was important

When asked the reason for not reporting anything, two out of three children (66%) mentioned that they did not think it was important.

An estimated 52% of children said they would not describe the online bullying behaviours they experienced as bullying

There is no legal definition of bullying, but it is often described as behaviour that hurts someone else, physically or emotionally, and can happen anywhere – at school, at home or online. Because there is no single definition, bullying can be perceived differently by individuals, particularly between adults and children, and this can depend on the context in which something is taking place and who it is carried out by.

In the survey, children were first asked to identify any nasty things that had happened to them or been done to them from a list of behaviours commonly recognised as bullying. Children were later separately asked whether or not they would describe their experiences mentioned as “bullying”.

More than half of the children (52%) who experienced an online bullying behaviour answered that they would not describe their experiences as bullying, while 29% did describe their experiences as bullying and 19% did not know. This could be for a number of reasons including the child was not aware these behaviours are commonly recognised as bullying, they did not consider the incident to be significant or they did not want to admit that they had been bullied.

Figure 6: Children with a higher emotional impact from online bullying behaviours were more likely to report their experiences

Who children aged 10 to 15 years told about their experiences of online bullying behaviours, by emotional impact, england and wales, year ending march 2020.

• Excludes those who said “Don't know” or “Don't want to answer”.

Download this chart Figure 6: Children with a higher emotional impact from online bullying behaviours were more likely to report their experiences

There is a clear relationship between the emotional impact of online bullying behaviours, whether children would describe it as bullying and whether they report it.

Children who said they were affected a lot were more likely to report their experiences with 9% not reporting these to anyone compared with 20% of children who were affected a little and 42% of children who were not affected at all.

Children who described their experiences of online bullying behaviours as bullying were also significantly more likely to have reported these to someone. Of those children who described their experiences as bullying, almost three out of four children (74%) reported their experienced to their parents or guardian, and 53% reported them to their teachers. In comparison, of the children that did not describe their experiences as bullying, 40% reported their experiences to their parent or guardian and 17% reported them to their teacher. An estimated 35% of children who did not describe these behaviours as bullying did not report them to anyone, compared with 11% of children who did.

Out of the children who said their experiences of online bullying behaviours affected them a lot, 58% described their experiences as bullying. In comparison, 30% of children who were affected a little and 10% of children who were not emotionally affected at all by their experiences described them as bullying.

Notes: Perception and impact of online bullying

• Percentages may not sum up to 100% as children may have given more than one answer.  

6. Online bullying data

Online bullying in England and Wales appendix tables Dataset | Released 16 November 2020 Data from the 10- to 15-year-olds’ Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) on the prevalence and nature of online bullying.  

7. Glossary

There is no legal definition of bullying. According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) :

"Bullying is behaviour that hurts someone else. It includes name calling, hitting, pushing, spreading rumours, threatening or undermining someone.

"It can happen anywhere – at school, at home or online. It's usually repeated over a long period of time and can hurt a child both physically and emotionally."

Online bullying

The NSPCC defines cyberbullying as: "bullying that takes place online. Unlike bullying in the real world, online bullying can follow the child wherever they go, via social networks, gaming and mobile phone."

8. Measuring the data

Crime survey for england and wales (csew).

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a face-to-face victimisation survey, which asks people resident in households in England and Wales about their experiences of a selected range of offences in the 12 months prior to the interview. In addition, from April 2009, in households with children aged 10 to 15 years, a child is also selected at random to be interviewed using a separate shorter 10- to 15-year-olds' questionnaire. For the year ending March 2020, 2,398 children aged 10 to 15 years took part in the children's survey.

Data used in this bulletin come from the Bullying module of the self-completion section of the 10- to 15-year-olds' questionnaire . In response to growing concern around risks to children posed online, this module underwent extensive review, and questions to capture the extent and nature of children's online experiences of bullying were first introduced in the 10- to 15-year-olds' questionnaire in April 2019. Findings from new questions capturing the extent and nature of children's online experiences of sexting, speaking with and meeting strangers, and online safety more widely will be published in February 2021 .

Putting the safety of the public first, we have suspended all face-to-face interviewing on the CSEW to minimise social contact as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Fieldwork for the year ending March 2020 was suspended two weeks early on Wednesday 17 March 2020 just prior to the lockdown restrictions being announced by the government on 23 March 2020. Estimates for the year ending March 2020 presented in this release are therefore unaffected by the pandemic.

On 20 May 2020, we launched an interim telephone survey (TCSEW) based on a reduced set of questions usually collected through the face-to-face CSEW. The TCSEW does not collect data from children aged 10 to 15 years as the procedure for interviewing more than one member of the household via a telephone interview would be complex and add considerable time to the length of the household interview. We do not currently know when we will return to face-to-face interviewing.

All differences reported in this article are statistically significant at the 5% level unless stated otherwise.

The  User guide to crime statistics for England and Wales  provides detailed information about the CSEW.

Safeguarding

Because of the sensitive nature of the questions and the young age of the respondents, we took care to address a series of ethical considerations before introducing these questions into the survey. Our concerns focused on how we could identify an "at risk" child through the proposed data collection and how to respond to such an identification without undermining respondent trust and confidentiality. To address this, we sought advice from both the NSPCC Research Ethics Committee and the National Statistician's Data Ethics Advisory Committee as well as approval from the latter.

Consequently, we implemented a "risk rating" approach where, based on the answers a child gives, a score is calculated that can fall into three categories (low, medium or high risk). Once the risk rating is calculated, a letter is sent to both the parent and child explaining the "risk rating" for the child. This letter does not reveal any children's responses to the questions or which questions have triggered a higher risk rating for the children. Children are made aware of this process before starting their interview and letters are sent to all children who have completed the survey. In this way, we achieve a good balance between maintaining the confidentiality of the child's responses but at the same time identifying and dealing with possible causes for concern. In addition, a number of resources with further information about this process and possible contacts for help were provided to both parents and the children before the interviews took place.

Pilot studies carried out by an independent contractor showed that a child's willingness to complete the survey and do so honestly was not affected by the risk rating approach. The approach was welcomed as a valuable tool for better understanding and discussion of online risks.

Estimating the prevalence of bullying

Children were first asked to identify any nasty things that had happened to them or been done to them from a list of behaviours commonly recognised as bullying. Children were able to give more than one answer. The prevalence of bullying was measured by the number of children who reported they had experienced at least one type of bullying behaviour in the last 12 months.

To estimate the prevalence of different types of bullying, children were asked whether each behaviour they experienced happened in person, by a telephone or mobile phone call, by text message or instant message, or online. Because of their nature, some behaviours are classified directly to a type of bullying, for example, "Physically hurt you on purpose" would be classified as in person without asking how this behaviour happened.

9. Strengths and limitations

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a large, national sample survey that has used a consistent methodology over time. Households from all over England and Wales are interviewed, and the raw results are weighted to compensate for unequal probabilities of selection involved in the sample design so that they are nationally representative.

The CSEW does not cover those not resident in households, for example, children who live in institutions are excluded from the survey. In addition, the survey is subject to error associated with sampling and respondents recalling past events, especially children. Children complete these self-completion modules on the interviewer's tablet by themselves (computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI)) and, when finished, their answers are hidden. Although this is considered the best data-collection method for questions with a sensitive nature, it is still acknowledged that children may not report experiences of bullying behaviours.

Comparability

Since the suspension of all face-to-face interviewing and the replacement of the CSEW with an interim telephone survey (TCSEW), we have been collecting a small amount of data on children's online experiences by proxy through parents. These questions collect information on the online activities of children aged 10 to 15 years during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including time spent online and negative experiences while online. Findings from these questions were reported in Coronavirus and crime in England and Wales and Crime in England and Wales: year ending June 2020 releases. Because of differences in the mode and methods used, these data are not comparable with data provided in this release.

As a result of the changes made in April 2019 to the bullying questions in the 10- to 15-year-olds' questionnaire, the data in this publication are also not comparable to estimates of bullying for previous years produced using the CSEW.

Experimental statistics

Data used in this bulletin come from the Bullying module of the 10- to 15-year-olds' questionnaire introduced in April 2019. As the year ending March 2020 is the first year of data, statistics in this publication are classified as Experimental Statistics ; therefore, users should interpret and treat these statistics with caution. As the statistics are new, they are still subject to testing in terms of their volatility but also their ability to meet customer needs. Experimental statistics can become National Statistics once they meet the required standards, something that is a long-term aim for these statistics.

Feedback from users on our statistics is welcome, especially when this concerns newly developed statistics. We are willing to consider different suggestions to further improve the statistics included in this release and ensure the provision of high-standard statistics.

Users can provide their feedback and suggestions by emailing [email protected] .

10. Related links

Child abuse in England and Wales: March 2020 Bulletin | Released 5 March 2020 Statistics and research on child abuse in England and Wales, bringing together a range of different data sources from across government and the voluntary sector.

Childhood vulnerability to victimisation in England and Wales: year ending March 2017 to year ending March 2019 Bulletin | Released 5 November 2020 Victimisation and negative behaviours of children aged 10 to 15 years living in a household with an adult who reported experiencing domestic abuse, substance misuse and mental ill-health (the so-called "toxic trio" factors) based on findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).

Contact details for this Statistical bulletin

• 020 7340 1160
• [email protected]
• JOIN or COMMISSION EPI

Home / Publications & Research / Social Mobility & Vulnerable Learners / Bullying: A review of the evidence

Bullying: A review of the evidence

November 12 th to 16 th is Anti-Bullying Week run by the Anti-Bullying Alliance . In this blog, EPI’s Kristen Brown explores the field of bullying research and reviews international evidence on approaches to tackling bullying in schools.

Key findings:

• While there are no official statistics on the prevalence of bullying in England, research suggests that at least two in five young people have experienced bullying in some form in the previous year, including cyber-bullying. 
• Bullying has deeply negative and long-lasting consequences for those who experience it, including mental and physical health difficulties, lower attainment and lower income in adulthood . Young people who bully others are also more likely to have mental health difficulties.
• Different social groups experience bullying differently, with girls, ethnic minority pupils, those with special educational needs and disabilities, and LGBTQ pupils more likely to face discriminatory bullying . The role played by this type of bullying in perpetuating inequities in outcomes for these groups, including lower adult earnings and poorer health, warrants further research.
• The government requires all state-funded schools to include anti-bullying measures in their behaviour policies, and all schools must comply with anti-discrimination law . In 2017, the Government Equalities Office launched an initiative to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools through group support programmes and teacher training.
• Some approaches to tackling bullying are better evidenced than others. Interventions that create empathy and understanding of harm caused appear to be more effective than punitive action . Existing research suggests that resources should be focused on anti-bias and bystander intervention training, peer support programmes, and restorative justice approaches rather than zero tolerance policies.

Prevalence and trends

Research on bullying began in the 1970s, prompted by a number of communities that lost victimised pupils to suicide. The early research identified unique social factors at the root of bullying, most notably the power imbalance between the perpetrator and victim, which can be exploited through physical, verbal and non-verbal means, either directly or indirectly. [1] Since then, research has focused on understanding prevalence, identifying risk factors, and testing interventions. With the advent of technological developments, the battle against bullying grew to encompass the rising prevalence of cyberbullying.

The field of bullying research has been complicated by several issues. Many studies do not use the same measures across time and place, making systematic reviews and meta-analyses difficult. According to one review of studies conducted between 1990 and 2009, rates of school bullying are decreasing; however two-thirds of children in English schools feel that bullying is getting worse. [2] Evidence suggests that changing levels of in-school bullying are driving this, while bullying outside of school is actually increasing. 1,2 It is possible that interventions tackling bullying have not addressed bullying outside of schools to the same extent as in-school bullying, and more cohesive research is needed to understand the role played by both.

There are currently no official statistics collected on the prevalence of bullying in England. Research findings indicate that more than half of young people have experienced some form of peer victimisation in their lives, with approximately two in five reporting some type of bullying, including cyber-bullying, in the previous year. [3] , [4]  

However, experiences of bullying differ across social groups . Boys are more likely to be hit or threatened, while girls are more likely to suffer from indirect forms of bullying such as social isolation and rumour-spreading. [5] As a result, some staff find that bullying faced by girls is less visible and therefore more difficult to address. [6] Many girls also experience misogynistic bullying in school. According to a Women and Equalities Committee report published earlier this year, 29 per cent of 16- to 18-year-old girls experienced unwanted sexual touching in school, 59 per cent of 13- to 21-year-old girls said they faced some form of sexual harassment in the past year, and 71 per cent of 16- to 18-year-olds report hearing gendered insults on a regular basis. [7] In addition to the mental health consequences associated with bullying, victimisation in childhood is associated with lower accumulated wealth and higher health-related costs for women compared to men in adulthood . [8] This is of particular importance, considering the entrenched wage gap between men and women in the UK and internationally. [9]

Ethnic minority pupils may experience racist bullying or harassment. One meta-analysis found no significant differences in bullying experienced by majority and minority ethnic groups of pupils. However, when broken down by country, researchers found that this was not true in the UK, where ethnic minority pupils faced significantly more bullying than their majority group peers . [10] It is possible that variations in racist bullying across countries can be attributed to political climate. Research has found that a negative campus climate invites the harassment and victimisation of sexual minority youth. [11] Some preliminary research suggests that the election of Donald Trump was associated with an increase in racist bullying. [12] In a series of case studies, schools with clear procedures for responding to racist bullying and harassment increased attainment for ethnic minority pupils. [13] More research should investigate whether this is a causal association, as the implications for the attainment of ethnic minority pupils could be significant.

Similar issues arise for LGBTQ pupils. About one half of primary school teachers report that their pupils experience homophobic, biphobic or transphobic (HBT) bullying; in secondary school, this problem becomes even worse, with nine out of ten teachers reporting that their pupils experience HBT bullying. [14] One fifth of LGBTQ students who progress to university experienced name calling, rumours and gossip about them due to their sexual orientation, with a small number reporting severe forms of HBT bullying including threats or intimidation and being physically attacked. [15] Almost all (91 per cent) students who experience these kinds of discriminatory bullying did not report them, for reasons that included not believing the university would take them seriously, not knowing how to make an official report, being too afraid to make an official report, and not thinking the incident was worth reporting. 15 Not only does the lack of reporting indicate that perpetrators may be left unchallenged and continue to harass students, it also suggests that university records likely significantly underestimate the scope of the problem.

Additionally, pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) face increased risk of bullying, with some research showing that pupils with SEND were twice as likely to be bullied as non-SEND pupils with similar characteristics. [16] Pupils with Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) are more likely to be bullied than the general population, and some evidence suggests that these pupils face a higher risk of bullying than other pupils with SEND. [17] Among pupils with ASC, being older, attending a mainstream (rather than special) school, having lower levels of educational support, and using public transport to travel to and from school increased the risk of being bullied further. [ 17] Research suggests that the way pupils are labelled or separated within schools may result in stigma or ‘othering’ which could increase bullying, as pupils with a statement have been found to be bullied more frequently than pupils with SEND without a statement. 16

While the groups discussed here are not the only ones who face specific or disproportionate bullying, they have been most addressed by the literature. Some evidence has identified socioeconomic disadvantage as a predictor of bullying victimisation, though this association may be explained by other factors. [18] , [19] Some research suggests that being a child carer is associated with being bullied. [20] , [21] , [22] Another study shows that children in care are often bullied, however due to a small sample size these results could not be compared meaningfully to the general population. [23] Further studies should clarify this preliminary research and identify other groups of pupils who face similar struggles, as well as exploring solutions for groups that we know are at increased risk of experiencing bullying.

Consequences of bullying

The literature consistently shows that being bullied is associated with increased social and emotional problems, as well as negative academic and career consequences in the long-term. These include low self-esteem, low attendance, mental ill-health and suicidal ideation. [24] , [25] Bullying victimisation can be harmful to one’s physical health as well, with bullied children reporting more stomach aches, headaches, mouth sores and chest thumping. 24 Some evidence suggests a circular relationship: the emotional distress caused by victimisation may impair behavioural and emotional regulation, lower self-esteem, and hinder social skills, increasing the likelihood of further victimisation. [26] Additionally, research has indicated that bullied children have lower educational qualifications, worse financial management and a lower income at age 50. [ 25] These negative impacts are particularly concerning given the pre-existing disparities between some of the groups disproportionately affected by bullying and the general population. It is possible that school bullying perpetuates these inequities.

Importantly, the perpetration of bullying is also associated with similar social, emotional, and long-term life consequences. Pupils who bully others are more likely to come from abusive homes than their peers, and have higher levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation [24],  [27] , [28] When excluded, these children are more likely to not complete their education, become involved in criminal behaviour, abuse drugs, and develop depression. [ 27]

Existing interventions and their effectiveness

In recent years, the Department for Education (DfE) has made some effort to address bullying. All state-funded schools are required to include anti-bullying measures in their discipline policy, which are checked by Ofsted inspections. [29] In 2017, the Government Equalities Office led a £3m initiative to reduce HBT bullying in schools by partnering with anti-discrimination and children’s charities, which deliver group support programmes and teacher training. [30] However, it is unclear if DfE’s impression that such interventions would be sufficient to ‘stamp out LGBT bullying’ will prove correct. 30 As the Department continues to support pupils, it is necessary to examine the evidence on how bullying is best tackled.

Various types of training have been used to prevent bullying. The Early Intervention Foundation has found strong evidence that prevention programmes lead to positive bystander behaviour, lower acceptance of bullying and aggression, reductions in self-reported bullying and victimisation, and reductions in assisting or reinforcing the bully. [31] Other evidence shows that bystander training, though rarely used in the UK, has been considered moderately effective by the school staff who use it. [32] School staff have reported that more general programmes, such as Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL), were helpful as well. 32 This research suggests that the DfE’s work to combat HBT bullying through teacher training programmes which seek to help teachers discuss HBT bullying productively could be similarly effective. However, the research on PSHE, SEAL and bystander training relies on staff reports rather than the prevalence of bullying before and after the programmes. Additionally, these programmes are limited to HBT bullying.

Empathy training methods, such as the Persona Dolls Approach (PDA), have also demonstrated promise with regards to decreasing bullying. The PDA involves cloth dolls being introduced to classes of young children along with an identity, cultural background, gender and (dis)ability. [33] The teacher incorporates relatable experiences or feelings, and negative experiences related to bullying or bias, which the teacher and children work together to resolve. Teachers reported that using these dolls improved empathy and decreased bullying, however this measure could be vulnerable to self-report bias, and there has been little large scale, quantitative research conducted to test effectiveness. 33 Additionally, teachers may unintentionally project stereotypes or biases into their characterisation of the dolls or their problem solving.

Interventions

In addition to prevention methods, there are a number of well-evidenced responses to bullying.

Peer programmes , including peer mediation and peer support, are used to some extent in about 68 per cent of UK schools. 32 According to the teachers surveyed in one study, peer mediation, which involves training pupils to intervene, was the most effective peer programme. 32 Peer support can also be effective, with one study concluding that high levels of emotional support protected against the negative impact of bullying on attainment. [34] Another found a number of benefits of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) in US schools. First, LGBTQ pupils in schools with GSAs were significantly less likely to drop out than those in schools without, even if they were not involved with the group. Furthermore, pupils in their school’s GSA were even less likely to drop out than their counterparts who did not join. 11 Additionally, the average Grade Point Averages of pupils in schools with a GSA were higher. In schools with a GSA, fewer pupils reported feeling unsafe at school or missing school because of fear. 11 These findings indicate that it may be helpful to develop similar support groups for pupils with other marginalised identities. Additionally, this suggests that DfE initiatives will improve the experiences of some pupils.

Some qualitative research has discussed the role of managed moves, the process by which a local authority, parents and governors cooperate to move a pupil to a different school, as a response to bullying. Managed moves are often considered an alternative to exclusions, though little is known about how they are implemented in practice, the extent to which they are fully cooperative, or their long-term impacts. One study found that bullying or social isolation and the breakdown of relationships with staff were the two most prominent reasons for managed moves. [35] Outcomes for children who move schools to escape bullying vary, according to the limited research, with some pupils experiencing a fresh start, improved peer and staff relationships, and decreased anger, and others feeling characterised as a ‘problem’ and finding the process stressful and slow. [36] More research should identify the prevalence of such arrangements as a response to bullying and investigate the factors which determine their impact on pupils.

School responses, however, must do more than just support the victims of bullying; they must address the behaviour of the perpetrators. Many schools do this through strict, clear school rules that establish punishments for a range of violations, often referred to as ‘ zero-tolerance policies. ’ While these policies originally targeted physically violent bullying, they have since expanded to include drugs, sexual harassment and verbal attacks. [37] Zero-tolerance policies are intended to send a message, which theoretically both punishes the perpetrator and makes an example of them, discouraging all pupils from engaging in similar behaviours. 37 By this logic, these policies act as a prevention method as well as a response. Nine in ten schools in the UK report using direct sanctions with the purpose of sending a message. 32

However, research on the effectiveness of such policies has been mixed. While some studies report that they are associated with significant decreases in average incidents of violence per day, others found little to no impact on violence or bullying, and some even found they leave schools worse off overall due to the negative consequences of punishments, which may lead to drug use and poor academic achievement. 27,37, [38] Teachers reported that these approaches were moderately effective in reducing bullying, but not as effective as alternatives such as restorative justice policies. 32 In fact, even though 92 per cent of schools report using such policies, only about half of local authorities recommend them. 32 Some researchers suggest that zero-tolerance policies are not effective because they teach children not to bully out of fear of a punishment, rather than out of empathy for their peers. [ 27], [39] , [40] As a result, bullies who face sanctions may turn to more covert methods, such as cyberbullying, as their punishment did not teach them not to bully but rather to not get caught. 27

Furthermore, these policies are associated with negative outcomes for certain groups but not others. When rule violations result in immediate punishment, without an understanding of what may have caused it, pupils who struggle with emotional or behavioural regulation may be disproportionately affected. In the UK, children with SEND are six times more likely to be excluded from schools. [41] While these suspensions and exclusions may not have been the result of a misunderstood bullying incident, the underlying implication remains: setting specific punishments for certain behaviours (e.g. not making eye contact with a teacher, speaking out of turn or struggling to get along with peers) privileges pupils who conform more easily to expectations. Behaviour policies of this sort in the US have resulted in the disproportionate punishment of African-American pupils even after controlling for socioeconomic background. 27, [42] In English schools, Black Caribbean pupils are three times more likely to be excluded than their White British peers, though the role of discipline policy is unclear. 41 Further research should investigate the links between zero-tolerance policies, biased enforcement and racial inequality.

Another disciplinary method, often discussed in contrast to a zero-tolerance policy, is restorative justice – defined as ‘a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.’ [43] Some studies have found that perpetrators met with restorative justice were 14 per cent less likely to reoffend compared to those who faced a retributive approach. 39 Though originally used in the criminal justice system, restorative justice has also been practiced in schools to tackle bullying as well as other forms of misbehaviour. 32,39 In these cases, restorative justice focuses on helping the perpetrator recognise the harm done by their actions, while allowing those involved to take responsibility where due, understanding why the perpetrator committed the offence, repairing the relationship between the perpetrator, victim and community, and reintegrating everyone involved. 39 , [44] Restorative justice programmes have been effective in New Zealand and Australia, reducing truancy and exclusions as well as improving relationships with staff and parents. 39 Additionally, data from UK schools shows that rates of success in stopping bullying were highest in schools with consistently restorative approaches (79 per cent) and lower in schools that were inconsistently restorative (64 per cent) or not restorative at all (58 per cent). 32 By decreasing the rates of reoccurrence, perhaps because they work to improve the relationship between pupils, restorative justice policies function as both a prevention and response strategy for school bullying.

Restorative justice also addresses some of the shortcomings of zero tolerance policies. First, it focuses on establishing empathy for the victim, as opposed to adherence to a rule. 27,39,40 Therefore, it may be more effective in reducing types of bullying that are difficult for school staff to observe, such as cyberbullying and relational bullying. Research also suggests that restorative justice makes the school system fairer, especially for pupils with SEND, by decreasing ineffective sanctions [ 39]. Additionally, restorative justice aims to reintegrate the perpetrator and victim once appropriate, which may curb the adverse long-term effects that both parties face. More research is necessary to test these hypotheses.

However, restorative justice has limitations as well. It may be more time consuming than other forms of punishment, since it often includes teacher training and mediation conferences [ 40].  Research on whether the time gained due to decreased bullying reoccurrence justifies this investment is necessary. Additionally, some argue that the anecdotal evidence on restorative justice characterises it in an unrealistic way, and that the reality, while still impactful, is more complicated [ 42].

Policy and research implications

The evidence suggests that further resources should focus on strategies such as anti-bias, anti-bullying, and bystander intervention training; peer support programmes; and restorative justice programmes rather than zero-tolerance policies, while continuing research on improving these methods. Many schools report that they used direct sanctions but would have liked to use restorative justice policies. 32 Some argue that the role of Ofsted ratings in facilitating competition between schools to attract pupils incentivises low tolerance behaviour policies. [45] Concerns have been raised that it can be difficult to make time for restorative justice conferences and trainings, given teachers’ workloads. 40 However, since research suggests that restorative justice is more effective in reducing bullying than quicker interventions such as zero-tolerance policies, investing in such methods is likely to decrease workload in the long term.

Future research and policy-making should take into account that bullying varies in nature and severity for different pupils, and it is important to acknowledge where certain characteristics, such as ethnic origin, gender, ability/disability and sexual orientation, may shape a child’s experience of bullying. Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge the underlying emotional health problems that may lead pupils to victimise their peers. Furthermore, it is important to consider which schools have the most effective anti-bullying policies and how pupils are affected. In the US, restorative justice is less likely to be used in schools with higher proportions of African-American pupils. [46] Research should investigate whether access to the best evidenced anti-bullying measures varies by race or ethnicity, socioeconomic position or geography. In answering these questions, researchers and policymakers will support pupils in pursuing an education in a setting that helps them succeed and reach their potential in terms of academic achievement and well-being.

[1] Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school.  Educational leadership ,  60 (6), 12-17.

[2] Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise?  Social Psychology of Education ,  14 (4), 441-455.

[3] Anti-Bullying Alliance. (2017). Prevalence of bullying. Retrieved from https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/tools-information/all-about-bullying/prevalence-and-impact/prevalence-bullying

[4] Lasher, S. & Baker, C. (2015). Bullying: Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England 2, wave 2: Research brief. Department for Education. Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570241/Bullying_evidence_from_the_longitudinal_study_of_young_people_in_England_2__wave_2_brief.pdf

[5] Smith, P. K. (1997). Bullying in schools: the UK experience and the Sheffield Anti-Bullying Project.  The Irish Journal of Psychology ,  18 (2), 191-201.

[6] Eslea, M., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long‐term effectiveness of anti‐bullying work in primary schools.  Educational Research ,  40 (2), 203-218.

[7] Long, R., Hubble, S. (2018, June 7). Sexual harassment in education . Retrieved from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8117#fullreport .

[8] Santos, J. (2018, June 28). The economic impact of bullying . Retrieved from https://www.nationalelfservice.net/publication-types/economic-analysis/economic-impact-of-bullying-mhed2018/ .

[9] Costa Dias, M., Joyce, R., & Parodi, F. (2018). The gender pay gap in the UK: children and experience in work.  Institute for Fiscal Studies . https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10356.

[10] Vitoroulis, I., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Meta‐analytic results of ethnic group differences in peer victimization.  Aggressive behaviour ,  41 (2), 149-170.

[11] Walls, N. E., Kane, S. B., & Wisneski, H. (2010). Gay—straight alliances and school experiences of sexual minority youth.  Youth & Society ,  41 (3), 307-332.

[12] Cornell, D, & Huang, F. (2018). School Teasing and Bullying After the Presidential Election. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association. New York: April 13 th -17 th , 2018.

[13] Blair, M., Bourne, J., Coffin, C., Creese, A., & Kenner, C. (1998).  Making the difference: Teaching and learning strategies in successful multi-ethnic schools . London: Department for Education and Employment.

[14] Mitchell, M., Gray, M., & Beninger, K. (2014). Tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying among school-age children and young people.  Evidence review and typology of initiatives. London: NatCen .

[15] Grimwood, M. E. (2017). What do LGBTQ pupils say about their experience of university in the UK?  Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education ,  21 (4), 140-143.

[16] Chatzitheochari, S., Parsons, S., & Platt, L. (2016). Doubly disadvantaged? Bullying experiences among disabled children and young people in England.  Sociology ,  50 (4), 695-713.

[17] Hebron, J., Oldfield, J., & Humphrey, N. (2017). Cumulative risk effects in the bullying of children and young people with autism spectrum conditions.  Autism ,  21 (3), 291-300.

[18] Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  171 (7), 777-784.

[19] Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems:‘Much ado about nothing’?  Psychological Medicine ,  40 (5), 717-729.

[20] Cree, V. E. (2003). Worries and problems of young carers: issues for mental health.  Child & Family Social Work ,  8 (4), 301-309.

[21] Farmer, E., Selwyn, J., & Meakings, S. (2013). ‘Other children say you’re not normal because you don’t live with your parents’. Children’s views of living with informal kinship carers: social networks, stigma and attachment to carers.  Child & Family Social Work ,  18 (1), 25-34.

[22] Lloyd, K. (2013). Happiness and well-being of young carers: Extent, nature and correlates of caring among 10 and 11-year-old school children.  Journal of Happiness Studies ,  14 (1), 67-80.

[23] Rao, V., & Simkiss, D. (2007). Bullying in schools: A survey of the experience of looked after children.  Adoption & Fostering ,  31 (3), 49-57.

[24] Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools.  The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry ,  48 (9), 583-590.

[25] Wolke, D., & Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying.  Archives of Disease in Childhood ,  100 (9), 879-885.

[26] Cross, D., Lester, L., & Barnes, A. (2015). A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of cyber and traditional bullying victimisation.  International Journal of Public Health ,  60 (2), 207-217.

[27] Borgwald, K., & Theixos, H. (2013). Bullying the bully: Why zero-tolerance policies get a failing grade.  Social Influence ,  8 (2-3), 149-160.

[28] Salmon, G., James, A., & Smith, D. M. (1998). Bullying in schools: Self-reported anxiety, depression, and self-esteem in secondary school children.  BMJ ,  317 (7163), 924-925.

[29] Department for Education (2017, July). Preventing and tackling bullying: Advice for headteachers, staff and governing bodies. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623895/Preventing_and_tackling_bullying_advice.pdf .

[30] Department for Education (2017, September 8). Schools around the country to stamp out LGBT bullying . Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-around-the-country-to-stamp-out-lgbt-bullying/ .

[31] Clarke, A., Morreale, S., Field, C., Hussein, Y., & Barry, M. (February, 2015). What works in enhancing social and emotional skills development during childhood and adolescence? A review of the evidence on the effectiveness of school-based and out-of-school programmes in the UK . Retrieved from: http://www.eif.org.uk/publication/social-and-emotional-learning-skills-for-life-and-work/ .

[32] Thompson, F., & Smith, P. K. (2011). The use and effectiveness of anti-bullying strategies in schools.  Research Brief DFE-RR098 , 1-220.

[33] Smith, C. (2009).  Persona Dolls and anti-bias curriculum practice with young children: A case study of Early Childhood Development teachers  (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town).

[34] Rothon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London.  Journal of Adolescence ,  34 (3), 579-588.

[35] Bagley, C., & Hallam, S. (2016). Young people’s and parent’s perceptions of managed moves.  Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties ,  21 (2), 205-227.

[36] Kellam, S. G., Mackenzie, A. C. L., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Wang, W., Petras, H., & Wilcox, H. C.  (2011). The Good Behaviour Game and the Future of Prevention and Treatment. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice , 6(1), 73-84.

[37] Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence.  An analysis of school disciplinary practice .

[38] Dixon, D. (1999, March). Beyond zero tolerance. In  3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia, Mapping the Boundaries of Australia’s Criminal Justice System  (pp. 22-23).

[39] Procter-Legg, T. (2018, March 2). How to become a restorative justice school—Part 1: The case for embracing it . Retrieved from https://www.tes.com/news/how-become-restorative-school-part-1-case-embracing-it .

[40] Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative justice in schools.  Support for Learning ,  17 (3), 144-149.

[41] Department for Education (2018, July 19). Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2016-2017 . Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england-2016-to-2017 .

[42] Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice: The real story.  Punishment & Society ,  4 (1), 55-79.

[43] Marshall, T. F. (1996). The evolution of restorative justice in Britain.  European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research ,  4 (4), 21-43.

[44] Wearmouth, J., Mckinney, R., & Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative justice in schools: A New Zealand example.  Educational Research ,  49 (1), 37-49.

[45] Bagley, C., & Hallam, S. (2015). Managed moves: school and local authority staff perceptions of processes, success and challenges.  Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties ,  20 (4), 432-447.

[46] Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline.  Youth & Society ,  47 (4), 539-564.

Kristen Brown

Bullying and harassment

Explore the CIPD’s point of view on bullying and harassment, including recommendations for employers

With many employees facing bullying or harassment in the workplace, employers need to build inclusive cultures where unfair treatment is known to be unacceptable, ensuring staff work in a safe environment and are treated with dignity and respect.

The situation

While most companies have policies on preventing bullying and harassment in the workplace, too many organisations have workplace cultures in which people are afraid to challenge inappropriate behaviour or are not treated seriously when they do so. As a result, far too many employees continue to face unfair treatment in the workplace.

Bullying and harassment exist at the more severe end of workplace incivility. There’s no legal definition but Acas describes it as “unwanted behaviour from a person or group that is either: •    offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting •    an abuse or misuse of power that undermines, humiliates, or causes physical or emotional harm to someone.”

You can find more information about incivility and bullying at work in our evidence review . 

CIPD research shows that 15% of employees in the UK experienced bullying of some kind, with 8% reporting harassment and 4% sexual harassment. The findings show how bullying and harassment can occur across a wide spectrum of behaviours, ranging from extreme forms of intimidation, such as physical violence, to more subtle forms such as an inappropriate joke or ignoring someone.

CIPD viewpoint

Organisations should not tolerate any form of unfair treatment such as bullying or harassment. Employers have a duty of care to ensure that employees work in a safe environment, are treated with respect, and enjoy quality of working life.

Workers subjected to bullying or harassment can experience stress, loss of confidence and motivation, and higher levels of sickness absence, all of which may lead to increased staff turnover and less productive teams.

Employers should have clear policies on dignity and respect at work, highlighting the behaviours expected by all employees. Managers at all levels should understand their role in leading by example, challenging inappropriate behaviour, and responding promptly and consistently to any complaints of bullying or harassment.

All allegations of bullying and harassment should be taken seriously and investigated promptly and fairly, with formal action taken where necessary.

Actions for the UK Government

• Narrow the gap between legislative compliance and workplace practice by partnering with organisations like the CIPD, Acas and the EHRC to raise awareness of employers' obligations and to ensure advice and guidance for dealing with bullying and harassment is consistent and accessible.
• Support a ‘Know your rights’ campaign in partnership with bodies like the CIPD, Acas and Citizens Advice, trade unions, and professional bodies to ensure that the workforce is aware of their rights at work and how to raise issues of concern.
• Take further legal and/or regulatory action to ensure that employers cannot misuse non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements – these should never be used to silence victims where there are allegations of bullying and harassment.

Recommendations for employers

Put in place a robust and well-communicated policy that clearly articulates the organisation’s commitment to promoting dignity and respect at work, and the behaviours expected.

Build an inclusive workplace climate based on celebration and acceptance of every individual. Positive relationships at work should be underpinned by an open and collaborative management style, good teamworking, and healthy interactions with peers and managers.

Use training and guidance to ensure that senior leaders and managers role-model and champion appropriate and healthy behaviours.

Ensure there are mechanisms for personal accountability, particularly for those in positions of influence or those with discretionary or decision-making power.

Ensure the ethical use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements by considering if they are wholly necessary and ensuring that they are never used to silence victims or cover up inappropriate behaviour and wrongdoing, such as bullying and harassment.

Train line managers to manage people properly, including spotting and dealing promptly with inappropriate behaviour, conflict or other situations that could escalate into harassment and bullying.

Implement procedures and training to ensure there are clear procedures for reporting a complaint. All complaints should be investigated fully and fairly, and formal grievances resolved in line with the Acas Code of Practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures.

People should be encouraged to play their part in making dignity and respect, and equality, diversity and inclusion policies a reality, and to challenge inappropriate behaviour.

Discover our best practice guidance and recommendations on bullying and harassment in the workplace

Tackling barriers to work today whilst creating inclusive workplaces of tomorrow.

Discover our practice guidance and recommendations to tackle bullying and harassment in the workplace.

More on this topic

Explore our collection of resources around bullying and harassment in the workplace

Practical advice on how people professionals can tackle workplace bullying and conflict

Our guide will help you proactively tackle bullying and workplace disputes

Understand what bullying and harassment at work is, and how employers and employees can address the problem

More CIPD Viewpoints

Explore the CIPD’s point of view on religion and belief, including actions for Government and recommendations for employers

Explore the CIPD’s point of view on responsible business, including recommendations for employers

Explore the CIPD’s point of view on low pay and financial wellbeing, including recommendations for employers and actions for the UK Government

Explore the CIPD’s point of view on age diversity in the workplace, including recommendations for employers and actions for the UK Government

from a small NHS Foundation Trust

Bullying and harassment

“I spoke to my line manager first, when I saw that no change was made, I escalated this to my line manager’s manager. No changes were made and I then reached out to the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian through email as I was struggling to cope.

I spoke to the Guardian about the bullying and harassment I experienced from a colleague who targeted ethnic minorities. They would say things like  “How come your English is good?” and make racist, sexist and religious jokes.

I spoke to my line manager. “This is just what they’re like, but I will speak to them”, they said. But nothing changed, in fact they received a promotion, despite their behaviour which had been raised by others who had since left the organisation.

I then spoke up to my line manager’s superior. They said, “Stop being an angry black woman”. They said that a training exercise with the team would be arranged. But this was not pursued any further.

I felt repeatedly dismissed, alienated and insulted and it affected my confidence because I was afraid to speak up.

I then reached out to the organisation’s Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. At first I was afraid because I did not want to be alienated even further. It was as if I met a doctor; she was able to assess the situation and diagnose the problem. I felt empowered because the Guardian was extremely approachable and understanding, and she gave me encouragement which has allowed me to speak up now.

She spoke to my manager and my manager immediately spoke to the colleague on the telephone at home after work. When I came in to work the next morning, my manager told me that the colleague had cried and felt really bad as she was unaware of how her behaviour had affected me. But except for the initial apology, no other action has been taken.

The Guardian, in a bid to escalate this further, invited me to share my experience to a wider audience. I spoke with a group of line managers to highlight the impact of my experience and educate them on raising and handling concerns in the workplace.

The Guardian has shared my story at a board meeting, and there was a lot of discussion around race and managers’ behaviours. They agreed that all managers, including mine, will receive training in the handling of concerns which is being developed. The training will also cover sensitivity and inappropriate banter.

On reflection, I should have spoken up sooner rather than allow the issues to fester. I have learnt that speaking up about issues that I have experienced, seen or heard is worthwhile.  I am now no longer afraid to speak up.

This case study was part of our  100 Voices publication  which accompanied the 2019 Annual Report.

Case studies are vital to illustrate the good work of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians. We encourage all organisations to share the learning from their speaking up stories.

If you have a Freedom to Speak Up story to share, please send an email to  [email protected]

Bullying in the Workplace – A Case Study

By: Chris Potter

When Susan* began working at her new job, it wasn’t long before she realised that something wasn’t right between her and her manager.

What began as feeling a bit picked on began to become a constant source of stress for her, until she knew it wasn’t in her head anymore. It turns out that Susan was the victim of a growing problem for many – bullying in the workplace. This is her story of how it happened and how she got through it, which she has chosen to share to educate others who might be suffering similar.

(Worry you too are dealing with a workplace bully? Read our guide to workplace bullying to learn more).

*name changed to protect privacy

“i was the victim of a workplace bully”.

“I had been over the moon to finally get offered a job I really wanted, as a PR and communications assistant for an environmental company. But I had only been in my my job for a few months when I realised that my line manager was becoming gradually more hostile towards me.

She started nitpicking every piece of work I did, sometimes requesting that I start large tasks again from scratch. I remember the first time, when I wrote an article and she gave it back with two small mistakes circled and a note ‘check grammar’, but not a jot of other positive or constructive feedback. I thought she must have been rushed that day, but that was generally the way it kept going. I rarely had any support or feedback from her unless she felt I’d made a mistake.

Whenever I tried to raise any ideas of my own, she would treat me in a condescending manner and refuse to take me seriously. I also started to be moved off tasks which fit my skill set to menial jobs which no one else wanted to do. Suddenly I was no longer writing press releases but doing data entry! When I tried to request that there be more time for me to focus on my strengths, I was told that it wasn’t her priority.

It got worse. She repeatedly accused me of not doing what was asked of me or of making mistakes that I hadn’t made. Even when I knew I could prove her wrong, it felt petty to have to go to such lengths to do this. And then she would do things almost as if she wanted to find ways to see me fail. She’d ask me to answer all calls for the entire office right when I was working on an assignment, and when that predictably meant the article wasn’t written by the end of the day, she’d make out I hadn’t been working hard enough!

It all conspired to make me feel really miserable and suddenly the job I had always wanted turned into me dreading going to work every morning.

I felt confused as to why my manager rarely seemed to have any faith in me. Over time I lost all confidence in my ability to do anything properly; she made me feel like I was actually as useless as she was treating me.

“I tried to figure out why my manager was bullying me”

By: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I think she sometimes saw me as being a bit of a threat. She was particularly hostile towards me whenever I appeared to know more about something than she did. Once, when she was stuck trying to help one of my colleagues with a task, I politely offered a solution. It turned out to be correct, but I didn’t receive any thanks. She looked absolutely furious and wouldn’t speak to me for the rest of the day.

“The bullying began to affect my health and my social life”

As well as dealing with the emotional side of being bullied, there were growing physical symptoms. I was beginning to suffer with tiredness, often feeling so fatigued that I would need to go to bed as soon as I got home from work. I experienced headaches and nausea, sometimes to the point where I would throw up from feeling dizzy. It was a long time before I connected the frequency of these feelings to the things I was experiencing at work.

As for my social life, I stopped wanting to do things I used to enjoy, like going out with my friends and exercising. It was like all my confidence was gone and I was tired, so I just wanted to stay at home. My partner certainly noticed that I wasn’t well. I talked to him a lot, he was really my rock.

The truth is, I felt like I couldn’t tell my friends or family what was happening. I had spent so long trying to build up a career from almost nothing (graduating during the recession meant there were hardly any opportunities for me) and they had been so proud when I got the job, that I felt ashamed to admit that it was going so badly.

My partner began urging me to leave after I had been there for a year but I didn’t think we could afford it. It didn’t help that I started to apply for other jobs and didn’t get anything, so felt even worse. Of course now, looking back, I can see it is just the way the job market was at the time, but back then I was sure there was something wrong with me.

“Eventually I started to think I was going crazy…”

It began to get to the point where I felt like I was going crazy. I knew that my manager had a problem with me but all of her behaviour was subtle enough not to be noticed by other members of staff. We worked in a very small team and (outwardly, at least) everyone seemed to get on very well. I felt under pressure not to ‘rock the boat’ and felt that no one would believe me if I told the truth. I hoped that if I could only keep working as hard as I could, she would stop treating me so badly.

I would get angry, but the anger couldn’t go anywhere, so it just translated into more negative thoughts about myself. I was swinging between feeling like everything was all my fault then feeling furious.

When I went to see a counsellor , it was such a relief. I can’t tell you what a big help it was to have someone listen once a week and provide me with support when I decided to leave.

By: Alan Cleaver

“I had to decide whether to stay or go”

Things didn’t improve and I finally decided my only option was to leave. The final straw came when I accidentally saw some emails between my manager and other members of staff, including the director of the company. I say accidentally, but it was more on a quick instinct. Basically, I was looking in my colleague’s email account for some information for a piece. We had each other’s passwords and often looked in each others account if we needed to see some correspondence. But something in me told me to search for my name.

I felt sick to read emails that contained personal judgements about my behaviour and attitude and gave an entirely negative impression of who I was. My manager had even accused me of lying about a dispute over holiday pay, copying in everyone on staff, can you imagine?! I realised that she had been sending these messages behind my back for some time and that everyone in the office, including some new members of staff, had had their opinions shaped by them.

It was seriously shocking, as for so long I had veered between thinking it was really going on and then thinking maybe it was in my head. But there is was, my proof. I couldn’t really admit to having seen the emails so I snuck off and called my partner for support.

I decided it was too late for me to try and undo the damage so I quit the very next day. I wrote a short letter, printed it off, and bought it the office. My manager was actually surprised. I didn’t bother to tell her why I was leaving, and a part of me thinks she was so much in denial about her behaviour she might have actually been surprised.

“Did I make the right decision?”

It wasn’t fair that I had to leave my job, and I know for many others they seek legal help, but I know that for me, I made the right decision. I guess I also didn’t look into the legal side because really, would I be able to say anything illegal happened? I just worked for a small team that had a not very nice manager who happened to single me out. Maybe because I was the most recent hired and the lowest paid, the last in the pecking order. Or because she needed someone to shift the spotlight away from her own mistakes and I was the most amenable.

What mattered was that I needed to protect my health and to seek a more rewarding job somewhere else. I feel relieved not to be working there anymore and I’m starting to regain my confidence and self-esteem through writing and voluntary work. I don’t regret leaving – unfortunately, the odds were stacked against me. I’m now trying to look forward to a role where my hard work will be valued.

My biggest regret is not that I didn’t tell off my manager when I quit, but that I didn’t know about workplace bullying sooner, and the insidious way it can operate. If I had of known, I would have felt less alone. Maybe I could have even presented my thoughts to my manager and tried to resolve something. That’s why I’m sharing my story, in the hopes others read it and it helps them make a bad workplace situation better.”

Are YOU a victim of bullying in the workplace?

Susan quit her job, but you don’t have to. Learn the signs and symptoms of bullying in the workplace, as well as how you can deal with it before it gets worse, by reading our guide to bullying in the workplace which also includes a list of useful resources. Have you you experienced bullying in the workplace and want to share your story? Or want to comment on something we’ve said? Use the box below, we love hearing your feedback. Want to know when we post more useful content like this? Sign up to our community up above!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Related Posts