From Bystander Silence to Burnout: Serial Mediation Mechanisms in Workplace Bullying

Abstract

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. Similarly, workplace bullying is widely recognized as a significant psychosocial stressor and a potentially traumatic experience, frequently associated with various adverse psychological outcomes. Based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, we conceptualized bullying at work as a demand whose detrimental impacts may be intensified by the actions of bullying bystanders who remain silent. This study investigates the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout, with a specific focus on the mediating roles of bystander silence and perceived stress. Data collected from 239 professionals working in the financial sector indicate that the effect of workplace bullying on burnout is significantly mediated by both bystander silence and perceived stress. The proposed serial mediation model underscores the importance of social and individual-level mechanisms in the development of burnout. These findings suggest that effective interventions aimed at preventing workplace bullying must be grounded in a nuanced understanding of organizational context and social dynamics.

1. Introduction

Burnout is crucial in organizational contexts since it directly impacts employee well-being, productivity, organizational culture, and ultimately, business outcomes. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) included burnout as an occupational phenomenon in the ICD-11 (11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases), defining it as a syndrome arising from unmanaged chronic workplace stress (WHO 2019).

Workplace bullying has emerged as a widespread and damaging phenomenon that threatens both individual and organizational well-being. Bullying at work has been consistently linked to both job-related and health-related outcomes, such as mental and physical health problems, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, increased intention to leave, and reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment and ultimately burnout (Nielsen and Einarsen 2012). The meta-analysis conducted by Verkuil et al. (2015) emphasized the association between workplace bullying and burnout. The three longitudinal studies provided more substantial evidence of a causal relationship between workplace bullying and burnout (Laschinger and Fida 2014; Nabe-Nielsen et al. 2017; Tuckey and Neall 2014).

Although the detrimental impacts of bullying on targets are extensively documented, there has been insufficient focus on the social and psychological mechanisms that elucidate the transition from bullying to burnout. Workplace bullying does not occur in a vacuum; it is embedded in a social context that includes bystanders. Bystander silence may not only reflect organizational norms or powerlessness but also intensify the harm experienced by the target. According to Ng et al. (2022), there are few studies indicating the lack of social support or bystander silence that worsens the negative effects of workplace bullying.

Omari (2007) indicated that colleagues’ passivity increased unpleasant feelings associated with mistreatment. Targets may perceive such inaction as siding with the perpetrator as a “passive accomplice” (Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik 2010, p. 344). This form of social abandonment can be described as a second wave of harm.

Grounded in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, we framed workplace bullying as a demand whose negative effects can be exacerbated by the behaviors of silent bystanders of bullying. The JD-R Model is one of the most influential frameworks in occupational health psychology for understanding work-related stress and burnout. It was developed by Demerouti et al. (2001) and refined by Bakker and Demerouti (2007). Based on the JD-R model, we aim to verify that high job demands (workplace bullying) and resource depletion (silent bystanders) increasing stress levels can be associated with burnout. Our objective is to examine the sequential pathway through which bullying at work is linked to burnout via both social (bystander silence) and psychological (perceived stress) processes by testing a serial mediation model (see Figure 1).

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model

The Job Demands-Resources model offers a thorough framework for comprehending the influence of workplace conditions on employee well-being (Demerouti et al. 2001). It categorizes work characteristics into two main types: job demands, which necessitate prolonged physical or psychological exertion and may result in strain, and workplace resources, which aid in achieving objectives, alleviate job demands, or promote personal development. This paradigm posits that burnout arises when employees face excessive demands without sufficient resources to mitigate their impact. A covert route to burnout is elucidated through a socially ingrained and psychologically internalized mechanism in workplace bullying, wherein the silence of bystanders exacerbates stress evaluations.

This framework has been widely applied to various occupational stressors and has evolved to include dual processes: a health-impairment process, in which high demands lead to burnout, and a motivational process, where resources enhance engagement (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Burnout, therefore, is interpreted as the psychological strain that results from an imbalance between job demands and job resources.

2.2. Workplace Bullying as a Job Demand

The workplace bullying phenomenon is described as “harassing, offending, and socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. To label a particular activity as bullying (or mobbing), interaction or process must occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., about six months)” (Einarsen et al. 2011, p. 22).

According to Leymann (1996a), bullying at work is a vicious cycle in which the victim is progressively isolated as the mistreatment becomes more regular and severe over time. Six phases of the bullying process were included in Lutgen-Sandvik’s (2003) cycle model for workplace bullying, which was an extension of Leymann’s methodology. The first phase involves attracting the abuser’s negative attention to the target. During the second phase, known as progressive discipline, the experiences of the target are muted and distorted. The turning moment, or third phase, is when the abuser intensifies their negative communication with the target. Joining the abuser to alleviate the victim’s pain is the fourth stage of organizational ambivalence. In the fifth phase, isolation and silencing, the abuser continues to destroy the victim’s reputation in an effort to intimidate and terrorize witnesses and the victim into silence. The final phase of bullying, expulsion, restarts the cycle. The subject is either willingly or unwillingly cut off from the organization.

This cycle emphasizes how the victim gradually experiences exhaustion. According to Einarsen et al. (2020), bullying involves repeated exposure to negative acts within a power-imbalanced relationship, often leading targets to feel vulnerable and defenseless. Bullying constitutes a violation of basic psychological needs such as respect, fairness, and social belonging, thereby eroding employees’ emotional resources over time. Drawing from burnout theory (Maslach and Jackson 1981; Maslach et al. 2001), burnout is a multidimensional psychological syndrome that emerges as a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors at work.

According to the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti 2007), bullying increases emotional labor and decreases feelings of control and safety, which both lead to emotional strain. Thus, in line with the literature, bullying at work is expected to be associated with burnout.

Hypothesis 1.

Burnout is related to bullying at work.

2.3. Bystander Silence as a Resource Depletion

A significant early focus of several studies examining bystanders as a component of the workplace bullying process was on how bystanders might suffer consequences similar to targets, like stress and psychological distress (e.g., Nielsen et al. 2024). Ng et al. (2019) have provided a more sophisticated understanding of bystanders as independent agents with the ability to impact the bullying situation at work.

Thirteen bystander roles were found by Paull et al. (2012) and categorized under the constructive-destructive and active-passive continuums. One of these is passive, that is, a silent bystander. Three psychological elements are believed to contribute to bystander apathy: the diminished sense of responsibility when several bystanders are present, the apprehension of negative public evaluation when intervening, and the assumption that the absence of assistance from others indicates the situation is not genuinely an emergency (Latané and Darley 1970).

Bystanders often abstain from intervention due to fear of retaliation or social exclusion, powerlessness, ignorance, concerns about jeopardizing professional relationships, and the belief that the organization implicitly tolerates bullying conduct (Paull et al. 2020, 2012). Hierarchical structure and insufficient organizational support further reinforce this culture of silence, since employees perceive themselves as constrained from speaking up (Jönsson and Muhonen 2022). Using the JD-R paradigm, Holm et al. (2022) conceived the passive behavior of bystanders as a form of self-undermining potentially arising from high job demands. Importantly, this lack of action does not only impact the targets but also has significant consequences for the bystanders themselves. Rosander and Nielsen (2023) discovered that passive bystanders experience adverse effects that are up to three times greater than those who actively intervene, encompassing psychological distress and reduced job satisfaction. Recent research indicates that witnessing bullying is associated with detrimental outcomes for bystanders, such as impaired well-being (Nielsen et al. 2024), negative perceptions of the work environment (Rosander and Nielsen 2024a), and even turnover intentions (Rosander and Nielsen 2025). In addition, Rosander and Nielsen (2024b) emphasized that the frequency of exposure matters: bystanders who frequently observe bullying are more likely to report absenteeism and presenteeism, which in turn may reinforce their passive stance.

Within the JD-R framework (Bakker and Demerouti 2007), this silence signifies a significant deficiency in job resources, including social support, organizational fairness, and shared values. The bystander silence growing in the face of bullying exacerbates the psychological effects of workplace bullying by deepening the victim’s feelings of isolation, injustice, and helplessness, which correspond to increased burnout. Consequently, the subsequent hypothesis was established:

Hypothesis 2.

The relationship between workplace bullying and burnout is mediated by bystander silence.

2.4. Perceived Stress as a Cognitive-Affective Appraisal

Cohen et al. (1983) formulated the notion of perceived stress as occurrences deemed stressful by the individual in the light of Lazarus and Folkman (1984)’s stress appraisal model. The authors propose that humans conduct two evaluations of events: (1) the determination of whether events impact the individual’s well-being and (2) the assessment of whether a threat exceeds the individual’s coping abilities. Perceived stress is defined as the degree to which individuals perceive their demands as surpassing their capacity to manage. Hogh et al. (2012) yielded that exposure to workplace bullying increased psychological and physiological stress response. Workplace bullying was found to be significantly positively associated with perceived stress by several studies (Grynderup et al. 2016; Minibas-Poussard et al. 2022; Nabe-Nielsen et al. 2017).

Individual evaluation is crucial in managing workplace bullying, according to the perceived seriousness and uncontrollability of a bullying situation as well as findings from many researchers (Nielsen and Einarsen 2012; Van den Brande et al. 2016). For this reason, the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus and Folkman 1984) appears to be especially well-suited to explain why targets of bullying may have mental health issues (Conway et al. 2021).

Unlike other traumas, bullying is a personally driven, private occurrence; hence, victims typically do not disclose their psychological pain to the attacker or their peers. Consequently, adverse emotions and heightened stress ultimately manifest as significant health issues (Tehrani 2004). Grynderup et al. (2016) emphasized the part perceived stress plays in the connection between bullying and adverse health outcomes. Verkuil et al. (2015) found the longitudinal relationship between workplace bullying and stress-related psychological complaints.

In instances of bullying, perceived stress can act as a psychological mediator linking exterior aggressiveness to internal exhaustion. Targets of bullying may perceive ambiguous actions as threatening and internalize feelings of helplessness. Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 3.

Perceived stress mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout.

2.5. Burnout as a Strain Outcome

The inherent power imbalance in workplace bullying situations can reduce bystanders’ perceived ability to act. As mentioned above in the previous section, “Bystander Silence as a Resource Depletion,” bullying behaviors are also threatening for witnesses. Additionally, organizational climates that tolerate bullying behaviors may discourage speaking up, making silence as a safer choice. Thus, as bullying escalates, bystanders can be more prone to remain silent, thereby reinforcing the cycle of harm.

Bystander silence during workplace bullying can result in targets experiencing isolation, invalidation, and disempowerment, hence exacerbating their vulnerability. Moreover, silence may indirectly legitimize the bully’s actions, fostering a toxic workplace that perpetuates psychological harm and emotional distress (Paull et al. 2012). Ng et al. (2022) found that a higher number of passive bystanders in a workgroup strengthened the negative impact of workplace bullying on targets’ work engagement, highlighting how bystander inaction can reinforce the negative effects of bullying. Bystander silence can act as a supplementary social stressor because this silence may be interpreted as implicit support for the perpetrator (Tirion et al. 2024). Consequently, both workplace bullying itself and the additional stress influenced by bystander silence may jointly contribute to the development of burnout.

Burnout arises as a psychological reaction to persistent work-related stress, especially when job expectations regularly surpass an individual’s resources. It is characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (emotional distancing from the work and the co-workers), and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment (Maslach and Leiter 2016). The process usually starts with prolonged exposure to high workloads, role uncertainty, and emotional pressures, which progressively exhaust human energy and coping resources. This depletion initially presents as emotional tiredness, marked by fatigue, irritation, and diminished motivation (Maslach et al. 2001). While limited work resources result in either depersonalization or decreased personal accomplishment, increased work demands lead to emotional exhaustion (Bakker and Demerouti 2007).

Burnout can be observed when job demands like workplace bullying are strong and mediators like bystander silence and perceived stress are present. This highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of work-related stress, in which social dynamics and individual appraisals intersect. Thus, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 4.

Workplace bullying will be indirectly associated with burnout through sequential mediation, such that higher bullying increases bystander silence, which elevates perceived stress, ultimately leading to higher burnout.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

The data were collected from the financial sector in Istanbul, Türkiye. Permission has been obtained from 35 institutions (banks, leasing, and assurance companies) for the research. Due to confidentiality, we do not have the right to disclose the names of these institutions. Of 968 surveys distributed, 239 surveys were used in this research. The respondents were initially informed that a study was being conducted for academic purposes in order to improve the understanding of some human behaviors at work. They were reminded that they could leave at any time they wanted. Explicit consent was obtained. Participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents were assured of the confidentiality of their responses to encourage honest and uninhibited participation. Data collection was conducted in small groups and lasted roughly 30 min. To maintain confidentiality, each participant was required to insert their completed questionnaire into an envelope and deposit it into a ballot box that already contained other envelopes.

To test our hypotheses, we selected the data of the financial sector professionals (N = 239) who were exposed to bullying since the aim of this study was to demonstrate the detrimental cycle the bullying victims get in through bystander silence. A single-item self-labeled measure proposed by Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) is used for this selection (exposure to bullying at least once a week and at least a six-month duration).

The average age was 34 (SD: 3.55). The female rate is 47% and the male rate is 53%. While 82% of them had university degrees, 18% of them had master’s degrees. Looking at the distribution of their experiences and professional positions, 82% of them had more than five years of banking experience, while 32% of the participants were clerical workers, 40% were customer representatives, and 28% were supervisors.

3.2. Measurement

Research instruments used in the study are all five-point Likert scales. Some scales used in the study were translated into the Turkish language and then back-translated to the original by two bilingual scholars, following the guidelines provided by Brislin (1986). The other scales were already validated in previous research.

• Exposure to workplace bullying: A single-item self-labeled measure proposed by Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) is used. The self-labeling method is where respondents are given a formal definition (see Einarsen et al. (2011) in the theoretical background) of bullying and then asked whether they consider themselves bullied. The item is “Have you been subjected to bullying at work during the last six months?” The response alternatives ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). Only participants rated 4 and 5 were included in the study. In other words, individuals who perceive themselves as subjected to bullying weekly or daily.
  In a preliminary pilot study, 30 bilingual participants completed the English version of the scale and, one week later, the Turkish version. The correlation between the two administrations was r = 0.77, indicating satisfactory test–retest reliability. The self-labeling method can introduce bias and therefore needs to be used in conjunction with a workplace bullying scale (Nielsen et al. 2020).
• Workplace bullying: The workplace bullying score was calculated using a validated bullying scale inspired by instruments developed by Leymann (1996a, 1996b) and Neuman and Keashly (2004). The scale, composed of 30 items, was designed to evaluate the nature and severity of workplace bullying. It measures five subdimensions: (1) Target’s communication: Assessing instances where the target is prevented from expressing themselves (e.g., being interrupted or not listened to). (2) Target’s maintaining social contacts: Evaluating experiences of social isolation (e.g., not being talked to or excluded from meetings). (3) Target’s personal reputation: Investigating occurrences of gossip or defamatory remarks about the target. (4) Target’s occupational reputation: Exploring experiences such as task deprivation or withholding of assignments. (5) Target’s physical health: Assessing threats of physical harm, such as injury or assault. Example items: “How often have you been prevented from expressing yourself (interrupting your speech, not being listened to)?” “How often have you been ostracized from your work environment (not being talked to, not being invited to meetings)?”
  The instrument demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 86, indicating its reliability. Previous research (e.g., Minibas-Poussard et al. 2022) has validated the scale through factor analysis, with all subscales exhibiting factor loadings ≥ 0.30 and the Cronbach’s alpha being 0.85.
• Burnout: The short version of The Pines (2005) scale is used. This ten-item scale has been validated in previous research for Turkish people with a high Cronbach alpha of 0.91 (Tümkaya et al. 2009). Example items: “I feel helpless.” “I feel emotionally drained.” In the current study, the psychometric properties are satisfactory (factor load ≥ 0.40 and Cronbach alpha: 0.87).
• Bystander silence: A scale of 5 items was developed, inspired by studies of Paull et al. (2012). The scale shows satisfactory psychometric properties (factor load ≥ 0.40 and Cronbach alpha: 0.90). Example items: “When I was bullied, people around me turned a blind eye.” “Nobody even wanted to talk about what happened.”
• Perceived stress: Developed by Cohen et al. (1983), the scale is based on Lazarus and Folkman (1984)’s concept of cognitive stress. It contains 10 items and shows satisfactory psychometric properties (factor load ≥ 0.40 and Cronbach alpha: 0.79). Example items: “How often have you felt nervous and stressed?” “How often have you been angered because of things that happened that were outside of your control?”

To assess the potential impact of common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was performed. An unrotated exploratory factor analysis including all items revealed that the first factor accounted for 15.13% of the total variance, which is well below the recommended 50% threshold. This indicates that common method bias is unlikely to be a significant threat to the validity of the findings.

4. Results

4.1. Bullying Behaviors and Their Frequency

First of all, although it is not directly related to our model, we wanted to determine what types of bullying behaviors the participants within the sample were exposed to. The twelve most frequent bullying behaviors we determined via the workplace bullying scale are presented in

Table 1. The twelve most frequent bullying behaviors.

In the Last Six Months	A Few Times a Month	A Few Times a Week	Almost Every Day
Assignment of excessive tasks beyond one’s capacity or without sufficient time	20.7%	22.3%	22.3%
Lack of recognition or praise one believes is deserved	24.4%	15.7 %	29.8%
Assignment of tasks below one’s qualifications or unnecessarily simple work	20%	16.9%	22.3%
Being the subject of gossip, slander, or rumors behind one’s back	18.2%	20.2%	17.8%
Complete disregard for one’s contributions	28.9%	14.5%	22.5%
Appropriation of one’s success or ideas by others	16.7%	19%	15.3%
Intentional delays in matters important to oneself	24%	14.5%	21.5%
Constant opposition to one’s decisions or opinions	22.3%	10.4%	20.2%
Deliberate withholding of information necessary to perform one’s job	24%	14%	15.3%
Intentional denial of help to cause difficulties	20.7%	14.9%	14.2%
Relentless criticism of one’s work or constant fault-finding	24%	14%	14.9%
Being blamed for mistakes made by others	28%	12.8%	14.9%

. More frequent bullying behaviors are in the category of threats to the target’s occupational and personal reputation and perpetrated by superiors (30–60%) and co-workers (20–55%). These findings provide valuable insight into the psychosocial nature of bullying behaviors most likely to trigger psychosocial mechanisms—such as bystander silence and perceived stress—outlined in the proposed serial mediation model.

4.2. Mediation Analyses

Data analysis is accomplished by using SPSS 22 and the PROCESS macro (Preacher and Hayes 2008). To test the serial mediation model (Model 6), a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals was employed to assess the indirect effect.

The analysis of means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between the variables is illustrated in

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients.

	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Workplace bullying	76.11	18.20
2. Burnout	34.90	6.92	0.14 *
3. Bystander silence	15.95	5.27	0.24 **	0.21 **
4. Perceived stress	30.25	3.08	0.24 **	0.55 **	0.18 **

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

, providing preliminary insights into the relationships among the study variables.

As expected in H1, burnout increased with exposure to workplace bullying (R = 0.14, R² = 0.02, F = 5.8, p ≤ 0.05).

According to H2, bystander silence mediated the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout (R = 0.23, R² = 0.05, F = 6.75, p ≤ 0.001). The bystander silence fostered the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout. There was no direct effect (t = 1.43, p > 0.05) but the indirect effect was confirmed (Effect = 0.0174, BootSE = 0.0077, BootLLCI = 0.0046, BootULCI = 0.0346).

As indicated by H3, perceived stress mediated the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout (R = 0.55, R² = 0.30, F = 52.68, p ≤ 0.001). There was no direct effect (t = 0.25, p > 0.05) but the indirect effect was confirmed (Effect = 0.0490, BootSE = 0.0141, BootLLCI = 0.0227, BootULCI = 0.0779).

The serial mediation model (H4) is justified (R = 0.56, R² = 0.31, F = 36.68, p ≤ 0.001). This model revealed that the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout was fully mediated by the bystander silence and perceived stress. The direct effect of bullying on burnout was not statistically significant (t = −0.25, p > 0.05), whereas the total indirect effect was significant (Effect = 0.0580, BootSE = 0.0149, BootLLCI = 0.0295, BootULCI = 0.0877). Specifically, the path through bystander silence alone (Effect = 0.0108, BootSE = 0.0061, BootLLCI = 0.0006, BootULCI = 0.0245), the path through perceived stress (Effect = 0.0406, BootSE = 0.0138, BootLLCI = 0.0150, BootULCI = 0.0685), and the sequential path through both bystander silence and perceived stress (Effect = 0.0065, BootSE = 0.0037, BootLLCI = 0.0002, BootULCI = 0.0149) were all statistically significant.

These findings support the hypothesized sequential process by implying that bystander silence and perceived stress fully mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and burnout. Burnout is revealed by means of a socially embedded and psychologically internalized process whereby the silence of bystanders sets the stage for increased stress appraisals.

5. Discussion

The current study examined a serial mediation model whereby bystander silence and perceived stress communicate the link between workplace bullying and burnout. Workplace bullying exerted a significant indirect effect through these two mediators, suggesting a complex interplay of social and psychological mechanisms. Prevalent bullying behaviors such as work overload, lack of recognition, performance obstruction, and gossip indicate the existence of both instrumental and socio-relational mistreatment, which may foster bystander silence and increase perceived stress, ultimately contributing to burnout through the proposed serial mediation pathway. As the literature suggests, a vicious cycle in which workplace bullying contributes to bystander passivity, which not only exacerbates negative outcomes for targets but also increases stress and psychological strain among witnesses, ultimately reinforcing the continuation and escalation of bullying within the workgroup (Ng et al. 2022; Rosander and Nielsen 2023, 2024a, 2024b).

In line with earlier studies (Laschinger and Fida 2014; Nabe-Nielsen et al. 2017; Tuckey and Neall 2014; Verkuil et al. 2015), the findings reaffirm the association between exposure to workplace bullying and burnout. The relationship between workplace bullying and burnout continues to be emphasized by several recent studies (Galanis et al. 2024; Kim et al. 2019; Purpora et al. 2019; Ribeiro et al. 2024; Ullah and Ribeiro 2024).

Importantly, this study expands current understanding by showing that bystander silence is associated with greater psychological impact from bullying. Silent bystanding contributes to establishing an organizational culture of silence and denies victims’ social resources. Consistent with the JD-R paradigm (Bakker and Demerouti 2007), bystander silence results in a depletion of social support and interpersonal justice—two essential protective resources in demanding situations. Also, the JD-R model can help us understand bystander silence: passive bystander behavior may be reflected as a form of self-undermining conduct triggered by high job demands (Holm et al. 2022), explaining why witnesses often refrain from intervening.

Moreover, perceived stress emerged as a key psychological mechanism through which the compounding effects of bullying and social silence translate into emotional exhaustion. As a subjective evaluation of one’s inability to cope with environmental demands, perceived stress functions as a proximal mediator that intensifies the burnout process, in accordance with the perceived stress notion of Cohen et al. (1983). In this way, bystander silence communicates a lack of safety, justice, and belonging at work, which not only fails to mitigate the effects of bullying but also subtly raises perceived stress levels (Paull et al. 2012).

On the other hand, prior studies have repeatedly underscored that social support lessens the negative effects of bullying at work. A recent meta-analysis by Farley and colleagues found that supportive organizational climates and coworker support are significant organizational and social resources that operate as buffers against bullying-related stress (Farley et al. 2023). Similarly, Rossiter and Sochos (2018), Pauksztat et al. (2022), and Berglund et al. (2024) underlined the positive effects of social support by buffering the negative effects of workplace bullying. Rather than merely expressing a lack of support, this research supports the notion that bystander silence enhances injury by communicating a sense of collective indifference.

Considering the significant incidence of workplace bullying in Türkiye (Civilidag 2015; Gok 2011; Minibas-Poussard et al. 2025), within the stressful and competitive financial industry (Giorgi et al. 2017), these findings provide essential insights for comprehending bullying and bystander silence. If we recall that the bullying behaviors experienced aim to damage the personal and occupational reputation of targets (Table 1) and that these behaviors are mostly perpetrated by managers, the issue of bystander silence can be better understood. Additionally, the high percentage of co-workers as perpetrators may suggest bystander complicity.

Taken together, the results imply that burnout is linked to the degradation of both psychological safety and social embeddedness rather than only from outright bullying. Rather than being objective, the quiet reactions of bystanders actively support the psychological damage the target suffers, therefore highlighting a shared responsibility for creating more responsive and safer organizational environments.

6. Practical Implications

The findings of this study suggest several implications for workplace policy and management. In line with social responsibility theory, organizations must assume accountability not just for direct misconduct but also for creating a psychologically safe climate that encourages voice and discourages passive complicity (Morrison 2014). Promoting active bystandership and reducing systemic stressors can be key levers in preventing the burnout spiral caused by workplace bullying.

Paull et al. (2012) urge a change in organizational culture that promotes ethical leadership, transparent communication, and explicit policies that recognize the consequences of silence while empowering employees to express themselves safely. They contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the social dynamics that sustain workplace bullying by framing silence as an organizational concern rather than an individual failing. Organizations should encourage a speak-up culture whereby staff members feel psychologically safe to disclose bullying or assist their colleagues without regard for reprisals. This includes training programs that empower employees to recognize bullying behaviors and understand the psychological consequences of passive bystanding (Detert and Edmondson 2011). Blomberg et al. (2025)’s study emphasizes the importance of a strong conflict management climate in the workplace to prevent bullying and increase employee confidence in swift and fair resolution of interpersonal conflict. When it comes to handling stressful situations, collective efficacy is crucial (Esnard and Roques 2014).

Furthermore, indirect indicators of organizational silence, like high turnover, emotional exhaustion, or general disengagement, should be watched by HR managers and occupational health specialists. Salin (2020) asserts that Human Resource Management bears significant responsibility for addressing bullying incidents, formulating anti-bullying policies, enhancing awareness, and implementing effective conflict management strategies. Early detection of the signs of workplace bullying may help create a more resilient, accountable corporate culture and avoid more serious psychological harm.

Finally, it is crucial to provide stress management training to help people cope with workplace bullying. Specifically, for employees in high-demand industries, stress management resources, including employee assistance programs (EAPs), mindfulness training, and counseling services, should be made available. Training programs may help to prevent chronic stress from escalating into burnout.

7. Limitations and Directions for Future Directions

Although this study helps to clarify the understanding of the psychosocial mechanisms linking workplace bullying to burnout, it is not without limitations. The cross-sectional data employed constrains causal inferences; thus, future investigations should incorporate longitudinal methodologies to prove temporal precedence. Mikkelsen and colleagues highlighted the role of cross-sectional studies in understanding causality by examining the link between workplace bullying and psychological distress indicators, despite their limitations in explaining the cause-and-effect direction (Mikkelsen et al. 2020).

The present study was confined to a particular sector and a single location (Istanbul), hence limiting the generalizability of the results to other industries or to Türkiye as a whole. Future research should replicate and broaden the proposed model across other sectors and cultural contexts to evaluate the strength and constraints of these impacts.

In addition to the mechanisms examined in this study, future research should explore other potential mediators or moderators—such as coping strategies, psychological resilience, emotion regulation, and personality traits—that may clarify the association between workplace bullying and subsequent stress and burnout.

Beyond quantitative research, qualitative methods may yield profound insights into workers’ interpretations of bystander silence and tension in workplace bullying situations, enhancing comprehension of organizational atmosphere, power dynamics, and target experiences.

8. Conclusions

This study sheds light on the psychological and social mechanisms linking workplace bullying to burnout. By conceptualizing workplace bullying as a job demand and bystander silence as a lack of social resources, this study aligns with the JD-R framework, illustrating how environmental stressors interact with social cues to generate emotional exhaustion. The study investigates the link between workplace bullying and burnout, revealing that bystander silence and perceived stress significantly mediate the effect between these two variables. It also highlights the role of social and individual factors in the progression of burnout in the face of workplace bullying. The findings suggest that addressing workplace bullying requires a comprehensive understanding of the organizational environment and social dynamics. Ultimately, preventing burnout requires acknowledging and interrupting the silent transmission lines through which workplace toxicity operates.