Leaders Urged to Combat Workplace Aggression Harms

Workplace aggression is a pervasive and highly damaging issue that costs organizations billions of dollars annually in lost productivity. Beyond financial losses, it fosters toxic workplace cultures, exposes companies to legal and reputational risks, and causes substantial distress for those who experience or witness it .

For years, scholars and practitioners have sought ways to prevent workplace aggression and mitigate its negative consequences. One proposed solution is bystander intervention, where employees who witness or hear about aggression step in to stop or address it .

However, results from our recent meta-analysis cast doubt on the effectiveness of bystander intervention as a reliable solution. We integrated research findings from 149 articles, which included data from 111,466 participants. Alarmingly, we found that bystanders intervened only in the artificial safety of experiments, but not in real work settings.

Not all employees feel equipped to address workplace aggression, and organizations should not over-rely on employees to take action. Instead, we highlighted the crucial role leaders can play. Leaders can effectively interrupt incidents of workplace aggression, act as influential role models for others and ultimately foster inclusive climates.

Leaders must step up

Leaders can become aware of workplace aggression in various ways, including overhearing rude comments in a meeting, receiving written complaints or being approached for advice on handling inappropriate jokes. When this happens, leaders must decide whether to act and how.

Several barriers may prevent leaders from responding constructively. Like anyone else, leaders are prone to cognitive distortions . They may downplay an incident as a joke, hesitate to confront a high-performing employee who is the instigator, or even blame the target for provoking the behaviour.

Some leaders may also feel it's not their responsibility to intervene. If they have demanding jobs, they might not have time or energy to get involved in interpersonal issues that are not central to their jobs.

However, the cost of leader inaction is high. In 2022, Nike faced a harassment and discrimination lawsuit with female employees raising concerns that "Nike's management were unlikely to address their concerns" about unwanted sexual advances, sexist attitudes, and discrimination.

In another case, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police faced a $1.1 billion lawsuit alleging systematic negligence and failure of "the chain of command" to address workplace aggression.

When leaders ignore workplace aggression, organizations can suffer reputational and financial damage. But most importantly, employees can experience serious distress , including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression.

Responding to aggressive incidents

One survey found that only 44 per cent of employees at U.S. companies strongly agree that their companies have a culture where employees are encouraged to speak up. Too often, employees remain silent when it comes to dealing with aggressive behaviours due to their perceived lack of power or ability to make a difference.

Leaders, however, have the power to resist pushback, hold instigators accountable and create a supportive workplace environment. Leaders must take an active role in both preventing and responding to aggressive workplace incidents.

First, leaders should acknowledge that addressing aggression is a part of their job. Aside from legal obligations to address aggression, leaders' actions set the tone for what is considered acceptable. Demonstrating a commitment to civility can signal their ethical leadership , a highly valued leadership style.

Second, leaders need to also address what might seem like minor incidents. A common misconception among bystanders is that minor incidents of aggression aren't serious or harmful enough to act on.

Minor incidents of aggression include low-intensity behaviors, such as sarcastic remarks, offensive jokes, eye-rolling, or dismissive gestures. More severe aggression includes such behaviors as yelling, intimidation, throwing objects in anger, or even inflicting physical harm.

Aggression often starts with relatively minor acts that may escalate to more severe ones when left unchecked , so these smaller acts need to be addressed. Once aggression escalates in intensity or frequency, it becomes part of the organizational culture, making it much harder to change.

It might seem surprising, but minor and severe aggression can be equally harmful to victims. Minor incidents are often subtle, which can lead to excessive rumination (e.g., was it intentional?), self-doubt (e.g., am I misinterpreting it?) and lowered self-esteem. This is particularly problematic because minor incidents are significantly more prevalent at work .

How leaders can intervene effectively

Leaders also need to learn how to appropriately intervene in incidents of aggression. For minor incidents, leaders can take immediate actions by redirecting attention from the target and stopping the incident by shifting the conversation or suggesting a quick break.

Leaders should also privately address the aggressive behaviour with the instigator. Aggressive behaviours, especially in minor forms, are sometimes unintentional, so it's best to approach the conversation in a non-confrontational manner that prompts the instigator to reflect on their behaviour and recognize the harmful nature of their actions.

Since employees commonly become defensive or deny wrongdoing during such conversations, leaders should focus on discussing behaviours rather than personality, and provide actionable suggestions for positive behavioural change.

It is also important to provide support to the target. Sometimes, employees react negatively toward victims of workplace aggression , such as blaming them for provoking the aggression rather than supporting them, which can damage their social standing within the team. When leaders support victims, it signals to others how they should respond, which can help victims retain their social status.

Leaders can also create opportunities for the target to showcase their skills, reaffirming the importance of their role within the team and the organization, or engaging in acts of leader allyship toward victims.

Innovating bystander training

While our findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of bystander intervention among regular employees, they underscore the critical role of those in positions of authority and power to take action to address workplace aggression.

Leaders should adopt innovative training programs, including bystander intervention training. While many organizations already provide such training, it often only involves educational videos or lectures. Research shows the best way to learn is by practicing , not passively listening. Training should take this into account.

But how can employees practice interventions in a safe environment? One way organizations can do this is by taking advantage of recent technological developments, such as generative artificial intelligence, to create realistic training simulations.

Trainees can engage in simulated conversations with a virtual instigator or victim and practice their intervention skills. Such conversations can be done in real-time with an avatar through video or voice, allowing employees build confidence and refine their approach in a controlled setting.

Leaders have both the power and responsibility to create safer workplaces. By taking action to interrupt aggression and support victims, leaders can be role models for employees and ultimately foster a more productive work environment. Needless to say, leaders should address the problem, not contribute to it.

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Sandra L. Robinson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Sandy Hershcovis receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Rui Zhong and The Ton Vuong do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.