Workplace Bullying in a Cultural Context: A Study of Prevalence and Organizational Perception of Workplace Bullying in Kyrgyzstan

Abstract

This study employs a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to explore organizational awareness of workplace bullying in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, from the perspective of HR managers. Quantitative data were collected using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) administered to 171 employees across several organizations and analyzed descriptively. These findings were subsequently used as a contextual reference point in qualitative in-depth interviews with nine HR managers, during which aggregated results were discussed to explore interpretations of workplace bullying prevalence and organizational responses. Analysis suggests that 91.2% (n = 156) of participants reported exposure to severe bullying at their workplaces within the given time period of 6 months, with 60.2% of respondents endorsing being bullied “from time to time” based on a stand-alone direct question. The qualitative analysis revealed 2 main themes: (1) Workplace bullying is often unrecognized, misinterpreted, harming employees and organizations, and (2) Managers expect employees to resolve conflicts, denying organizational responsibility for bullying. The implications and context of the findings are discussed.

1. Introduction

Negative interpersonal behavior that is specific to the workplace context is referred to as workplace bullying [1,2]. This phenomenon has been studied for more than 25 years and is becoming increasingly acknowledged as a severe issue in the workplace, disruptive to the effectiveness of employees and having profound negative effects on subjective well-being [3,4,5]. Bullying and harassment in the workplace have been reported on a regular basis in many industries, including social and health organizations [6,7]. Bullying is a global phenomenon [8], and estimates of its rates across different studies vary from 3.5 to 10.0% in some Scandinavian countries [9,10] to up to 95.0% [10,11].

Workplace bullying as a phenomenon has been recognized relatively recently, and its definition is under continuous revision, which creates some challenges for both victims and organizations seeking to identify and deal with issues related to it. The concept of bullying was first introduced in the mid-1980s by Norwegian and Swedish organizational psychologists [12,13,14]. Leyman defined workplace bullying as a phenomenon in which an employee perceives himself or herself as a defenseless victim of one or more co-workers’ misbehavior. Workplace bullying can be defined as a pattern of mistreatment of coworkers that continues over time, as frequently as once a week for at least 6 months [15], and can take many forms, from verbal criticism to direct personal attacks [16]. In the model suggested by Moayed and colleagues after a systematic review, bullying is different from other negative behaviors and includes threats to professional status (like belittling remarks), threats to personal status (like verbal or physical aggression), isolation, overwork, and destabilization (like assigning meaningless tasks) [17]. For the purposes of this study, we base our definition of bullying on the work provided by Matthiesen and Einarsen, which defines bullying as a cluster of repetitive and persistent negative behaviors directed against one or more individuals in the workplace, resulting in a perceived power imbalance and a hostile work environment [18].

Empirical research on workplace bullying in Central Asia remains limited; however, the broader post-socialist context provides important insight into how workplace relations are structured in the region. Following the transition from centrally planned economies, organizations in countries such as Kyrgyzstan have retained hierarchical management structures characterized by strong authority and limited employee participation [19,20]. At the same time, labor market reforms have been accompanied by uneven institutionalization of organizational policies and employee protections, often prioritizing operational stability over psychosocial well-being [19,21]. Together, these contextual features suggest that workplace interactions in Central Asian organizations are shaped by enduring hierarchies and transitional governance systems, which may influence how interpersonal conflict and harmful behaviors are recognized and addressed. While research shows that workplace violence may be just as traumatizing for the victim as physical aggression [18], there is no evidence that organizations in Kyrgyzstan recognize bullying as a significant issue.

Bullying as a phenomenon is related to other forms of discrimination, such as ageism and sexism [22]. According to the available data, both women and men have equal chances of being bullied at work [23,24], although women tend to report bullying experiences more often than men [25]. Some authors argue that some Asian societies can have higher rates of organizational bullying and higher tolerance of bullying due to certain cross-cultural differences, which include high power distance and low uncertainty tolerance [22,26,27,28].

1.1. The Consequences of Bullying

Previous studies have demonstrated that workplace bullying is harmful to both bullied individuals and the organizations that fail to address this issue [17,18]. At the employee level, one of the main consequences is increased stress levels in employees [3,5], which increase proportionally to the regularity and longevity of the bullying experience. Intention to quit, low job satisfaction, lowered work engagement, low performance, and low physical and psychological well-being add to the list of individual employee consequences of bullying [4]. Victims suffer equally from the actions per se and the anticipation of negative behavior being repeated. The effects are worsened in situations of a lack of real support [29]. Finally, employees might experience “threats to their need for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence” as significant psychological consequences of bullying [5] (p. 4). The effects of workplace bullying are not limited to those who personally experience bullying at work but largely apply to bystanders, who might demonstrate inactivity and avoidance out of fear of victimization [18,30]. According to Mayhew and colleagues, 20.0% of bullying bystanders made the decision to leave the organization as a result of their experience [31].

According to a survey published by the Campaign Against Workplace Bullying in the United States (CAWB), over 80.0% of respondents experienced health consequences such as severe anxiety, reduced concentration, and insomnia as a result of workplace bullying [5]. Among the psychological effects of bullying are depression, anxiety, loss of self-worth as well as self-esteem, burnout, and poor job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which gradually lead to feelings of incompetence [32]. Physical health issues reported include “nauseous feeling, migraines, palpitations, sweating or shaking, and loss of appetite to skin conditions” [29] (p. 16). Absenteeism is among the common negative consequences of workplace bullying [5].

At the organizational level, workplace bullying negatively affects the overall profitability and prosperity of the organization [33]. The losses for organizations include operating costs and a decrease in the quality of products or services [33,34]. A poor work environment and tolerance of bullying can decrease an organization’s attractiveness and complicate recruitment and the retention of skilled workers [5]. With a growing understanding of the impact of workplace bullying on organizational performance, it is crucial for companies to develop policies and measures for workplace bullying prevention, as well as to study the factors leading to specific cases of bullying. Since bullying is not recognized as a criminal offense except for cases of open discrimination [35], organizations are in a position to take an active role in preventing and monitoring workplace bullying.

Currently, there is no specific legislation in Kyrgyzstan to address the problem of workplace bullying. However, several respondents mentioned that such internal documents as “Dignity in the Workplace” or the “Code of Professional Ethics Corporate Culture” are the most common organizational regulations used for dealing with complaints and conflicts that may emerge in the workplace. In other countries, such documents typically contain a declaration of commitment to protect employees from harm due to bullying, offer a definition of bullying, and provide examples of behaviors that constitute bullying [35].

1.2. Organizational and Managerial Characteristics Influencing Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying has often been insufficiently addressed within organizational cultures and practices, reflecting persistent organizational inaction and limited mechanisms for responding effectively to such behaviors [4,36,37]. Repetitive bullying can result in isolation of the victim, retaliatory behavior against the perpetrator, or increased dropout rates, thus maintaining the overall negative culture of the organization [3,5].

Bullying is understood as a combination of factors, including individual ones such as protecting one’s self-esteem, lack of social skills, competitiveness, and more, and organizational factors which seem to be key in preventing bullying [38,39,40]. Organizational factors contributing to bullying include tolerance of workplace bullying, lack of policies and practices, hostile climate, and overly hierarchical organizational culture [41,42].

The best strategy for managers and leaders to address workplace bullying as part of organizational culture is to develop prevention systems in advance [33]. Other factors include introducing policy documentation such as a code of conduct, developing anti-bullying guidelines, establishing mechanisms for reporting cases of bullying, and maintaining a respectful workplace culture [42]. An array of possible interventions against workplace bullying is offered by researchers, including policy communication, stress management and negative behavior training, cognitive-behavioral training, expressive writing, and others. However, the reported results are not conclusive enough to effectively select systematic prevention methods [43].

Finally, the role of managers and human resource personnel in the prevention and addressing of bullying is considered significant and is discussed extensively in the literature [44,45]. Managerial style, recognition of bullying, familiarity with appropriate documentation, and readiness to intervene in cases of bullying are characteristics that have been shown to be related to levels of reported experiences and observed bullying in organizations [3,46,47]. Some studies point out that transformational leadership, when managers are involved, focused on performance and stability, and allow for autonomy of personnel, is associated with lower bullying and harassment [48,49].

This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, in which descriptive quantitative data were collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative interviews used to further contextualize the quantitative findings. The aims of this study were to obtain data on the prevalence of workplace bullying across a number of organizations in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised, and to explore the awareness and attitudes of organizational managers towards workplace bullying [50,51].

The present study was guided by the following research questions:

What is the prevalence of workplace bullying in organizations in Kyrgyzstan?

What types of bullying are reported by employees of companies in Kyrgyzstan?

How do managers describe their experiences related to prevention and intervention in cases of workplace bullying?

What public discourses do managers draw on in their discussions of experiences and the prevention of bullying in their organizations?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

For quantitative analysis, a sample of 171 respondents (68.4% females and 31.6% males) was obtained from the following public and private sector organizations: an international hotel chain, an international non-profit educational fund, a major internet provider, two airlines, a cargo company, a microfinance organization, and a mining company. The majority of the respondents (62.6%) were 20–30 years of age, 26.3% were from the 30 to 40 age group, and 11.1% were from the 40 to 60 age group. Ninety-one percent (91.2%) of respondents identified as white-collar employees, 5.3% as blue-collar employees, and 3.5% as lower-level managers. All participants lived in the capital city and had worked for their company for at least one year. A convenience sampling method was used to recruit participants from each company. Participation in the survey was completely anonymous—links to the survey were distributed among employees, and any employee could participate voluntarily by returning the survey directly to the researchers. Selection was not targeted at any specific industry; however, government, non-commercial, and educational organizations were excluded in order to focus the sample on commercial enterprises, where employment relations are more directly structured by market-driven organizational hierarchies and competitive performance demands, which are particularly relevant to the study of workplace bullying dynamics.

The sample for the qualitative study consisted of eight female human resource managers and one male head of a sales department, who held responsibility for personnel hiring. The managers were recruited from the same companies after the survey results were collected (see

Table 1. Manager respondents were interviewed for qualitative analysis.

#	Organization Type	Age	Years of Work	Num of Employees
1	International hotel chain	27	5	500
2	International foundation	22	2	200
3	Airline 1	32	5	200
4	Microfinance organization	43	8	250
5	Mining company	39	5	500
6	Airline 2	50	7	500
7	International foundation	42	8	150
8	International hotel chain	28	5	500
9	Internet provider/mobile network	35	8	1300

).

2.2. Materials

The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) is a research inventory designed to assess perceived workplace bullying and victimization [50]. The NAQ-R is designed entirely in descriptive terms, with no mention of the term bullying. It has the advantage of allowing participants to respond to each item without having to identify whether or not they have been bullied. After responding to 21 items, a definition of workplace bullying is introduced, and the participant must indicate whether or not they acknowledge themselves to be targets of workplace bullying based on this definition. Responses range from 1 = ‘never’ to 5 = ‘daily’. Three demographic questions were added to the inventory by the researchers, asking about age, gender, and years of employment in a given organization. The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R; 22 items) was adapted into Russian using a forward–backward translation procedure. The translated version was reviewed for semantic equivalence and clarity before administration. In the present sample, internal consistency of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. This process followed the translation and adaptation approach of Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (2011), prescribing an algorithm of non-literal translation and cross-cultural adaptation of inventories in health sciences [52].

The internal consistency of the NAQ-R, measured with Cronbach’s alpha for the present study after translation and adaptation into Russian, was 0.88. Similar studies using the NAQ-R conducted in the region report comparable alpha coefficients of 0.67–0.89 in the Arabic version [53], 0.89 in Estonia [7], 0.90 in the British version adapted by Einarsen and colleagues [50], 0.91 for the Indian adaptation [54], 0.95 for the Malay version [55], and 0.91–0.95 for the Japanese version [56]. The internal consistency of the Russian version developed in the present study falls within the acceptable range of alpha coefficients.

For the qualitative data collection, an in-depth semi-structured interview guide was developed. The questions addressed managers’ experiences with cases of workplace bullying in their organizations, their perceptions of the causes and outcomes of bullying, their perceived preparedness to deal with such cases, and organizational preparedness in terms of available information and policies designed to prevent bullying. Additionally, during the interviews, participants were asked to reflect on the quantitative findings and discuss their impressions of the reported rates of bullying.

2.3. Procedure

The procedure consisted of two stages: at the first stage, rank-and-file employees of several organizations were asked to fill out the NAQ-R. During the second stage, the HR managers were interviewed, and the interviews included their opinions of the NAQ-R results across a number of companies. Survey participants were recruited using snowball sampling. The NAQ-R was sent out electronically to potential respondents via work emails and messenger systems. Respondents were provided with an electronic informed consent form and information about the study. Participants did not receive any monetary compensation. Participants were notified of the study’s confidentiality and their ability to withdraw at any time. Filling out the online questionnaire took about 15–20 min. Quantitative analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Version 27.

The interviews were conducted by the first author after discussing and signing consent forms with the participants, and were both face-to-face and online, and were conducted in the Russian language. They took about an hour. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Pseudonyms were used in the final transcripts.

To analyze the data from the interviews, reflexive thematic analysis was used [57,58]. We employed reflexive, inductive thematic analysis as articulated by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke, using an organic coding approach in which codes were generated iteratively from the data rather than from a priori frameworks. Analysis followed the usual recursive phases: data familiarization, initial coding, construction and refinement of candidate themes, and iterative reviewing, defining, and naming of themes. Throughout, reflexivity was maintained, with themes understood as interpretative constructions shaped through the researchers’ ongoing engagement with the dataset rather than as fixed entities discovered within it. All stages were performed by both authors, with the first author finalizing the emerging themes. Interview material was not fully translated into English for analysis; the analysis was performed in the original language to preserve the meaning of the organic codes, and then selected excerpts were translated for publication. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the first author’s institution (#2021112300000071).

3. Results

3.1. The Prevalence of Workplace Bullying Across Employees in Organizations of Bishkek

The analysis reveals that as many as 91.2% (n = 156) of participants reported exposure to severe bullying at their workplaces within the given time period of 6 months (M = 50.95; SD = 9.47; range = 22 to 102), 4% reported occasional, and 5% reported rare bullying. This finding is based on the 33 and 45 cutoffs suggested by Notelaers and Einarsen [51]. The highest average score was obtained on item 1: “Someone withholding information which affects your performance” (M = 3.52; SD = 0.98), while the lowest average score was obtained for item 22: “Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse” (M = 2.02; SD = 0.55). Endorsement of bullying in this study is relatively high, and although some other studies reported rates higher than 50% [11,59], the current results will be discussed further to contextualize them in culturally and methodologically.

In contrast, based on responses to a single direct question asking participants to indicate whether they were ever victimized as targets of bullying behavior, based on the official definition, 60.2% of respondents endorsed being bullied “from time to time” (n = 103), 21.1% (n = 36) “rarely,” and 1.8% (n = 5) reported being bullied “several times a week” or more frequently. The definition of bullying used for this question was the following: “Bullying is a situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We do not refer to a one-off incident as bullying.” No significant correlation was found between the stand-alone question on bullying and the NAQ results (r = 0.119; p = 0.122).

In the obtained sample, the estimated prevalence of bullying did not differ between males and females—98% of males and 88% of females reported experiencing severe bullying at the workplace. Only 7% of female employees reported no bullying in the last 6 months, while no males reported an absence of bullying. Results indicated some differences in the total NAQ-R scores between male and female participants (t(168) = 2.028, p = 0.044), with males reporting slightly higher scores (M = 53.09; SD = 9.12) than females (M = 49.96; SD = 9.50).

Respondents identified managers and colleagues alike as offenders (49.3% of those who answered this question identified their boss, 7.6% colleagues, 4.7% clients, and 2.9% more than one offender).

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of age group on reported bullying. No significant difference was detected in reported levels of bullying between the age groups (F(2, 167) = 3.803, p = 0.024), contrary to some previous studies [60].

Descriptive results from the NAQ-R were used in the qualitative phase as a contextual reference point during interviews with managers. Specifically, aggregated descriptive statistics across all participating organizations within the city were presented to participants to facilitate discussion of perceived patterns of workplace bullying. Individual company-level results were not disclosed in order to protect confidentiality, particularly given the inclusion of smaller organizations where identification risk was higher.

3.2. Experience with and Perception of Workplace Bullying Among Human Resource Managers

Two themes were formulated after the careful analysis of nine interviews: one summarizing how the managers in our study perceive bullying and their personal experience with issues of bullying, and the other focusing on the managers’ understanding of their role in addressing bullying and how such cases can be managed. The themes were as follows: (1) Workplace bullying is often unrecognized and misinterpreted by managers, leading to negative consequences for organizations and employees; (2) Managers in most cases expect employees to be able to resolve conflicts among themselves, denying any role of the organization and management in effectively dealing with bullying cases.

Workplace bullying is often unrecognized and misinterpreted by managers, leading to negative consequences for organizations and employees

One of the most important findings from this study was that all the managers participating in the study demonstrated a poor understanding of what constitutes bullying at the workplace, and even more broadly, which behaviors can constitute violations of employee ethics or codes of conduct and how such behaviors can be addressed at a managerial level. The respondents generally perceived workplace bullying as either an abstract phenomenon that was not manifested in their particular organization at all, or talked about some isolated interpersonal conflicts between selected employees, denying bullying as a general issue. Managers had difficulty providing any examples of case resolution, especially successful ones. Instead, several participants provided examples of cases when the “victim of bullying did not complain” and thus nothing could be done, and the employee soon left the organization. All managers denied the presence of workplace bullying as a phenomenon in their organizations.

Most respondents were confused about how they could define bullying. Poor awareness of the definition and unawareness of bullying as a phenomenon might lead to the denial of the problem in the organization. The following quote illustrates this point:

We practically don’t have bullying … when you wrote to us about bullying I honestly didn’t understand it, so … that’s why we don’t have that understanding … As for your part on ethics, on psychology, on bullying, I think if I ask my colleagues what bullying is none of them would answer (laughing)

(P4)

The above quote suggests that part of the misunderstanding could stem from the use of the English word bullying, which has no direct translation and is usually used in transliteration. However, after the definition was provided by the interviewer, most respondents were able to describe bullying as abusive and aggressive behavior that mostly happened during their high school or college years. They seemingly had little knowledge of how similar behavior might be manifested in the workplace among adults, thus constructing bullying as something happening outside of the workplace and outside adult professional life. A lack of understanding of this phenomenon and not perceiving it as a serious issue happening among adults might be the reason for the subsequent negative consequences that workplace bullying may lead to.

This language gap is not only terminological but also cognitive: when a workplace harm lacks a stable local label, employees and managers have fewer shared cues for recognizing, naming, and reporting it, which can delay intervention and make bullying appear as an ordinary interpersonal problem rather than a distinct organizational risk. Cross-cultural research suggests that workplace bullying is not interpreted uniformly across settings [61]. Moreover, research on the conceptualization of workplace bullying shows that the recognition and reporting of such behaviors depend on shared definitions and labeling practices [62].

When asked about the impact of bullying on employees, the managers demonstrated some intuitive understanding of the impact that bullying might have on employees:

Demotivation… low self-esteem… looking for another job… Especially when we do internal vacancies, I can already see that something goes wrong when a person has just started one position and after a while starts applying for another position, it means that something is wrong, it can be like that…

(P1)

In most cases, though, managers demonstrated an understanding of bullying as something which should include loud and open conflict and argument: “It didn’t happen in our organization, when we would have some open conflict with shouts and cries, but even these subtle jokes were uncomfortable.”

(P8)

In their accounts, the participants acknowledged the importance of policies for organizations; however, they discussed that organizations are mostly unable to prevent or manage workplace bullying and minimize harm to employees due to the lack of information about bullying and unclear definitions and examples of inappropriate behavior. Also, the managers pointed to the lack of openness from employees about cases of bullying or their concerns, which leads to limited managerial awareness.

Some of the participants (7) indicated the existence of regulatory documents and codes of conduct in their organizations. Others denied using any policies at all. However, those who claimed that specific documents existed mostly presented them as general rules of conduct where job duties were outlined, without a clear specification of employee behavior, workplace ethics, and bullying-related measures. No managers mentioned the existence of policies or provisions on the resolution of bullying-related cases or employee ethics complaints.

Even in the presence of regulations in companies, specific procedures rarely existed, or managers were not familiar with them in sufficient detail:

Well, yes, we have general regulations, such as general rules of conduct and regulation of employees … but there are no such detailed things to regulate such (workplace bullying-related) incidents.

(P7)

Overall, the managers admitted that negative behaviors are widespread and typical for organizations in Kyrgyzstan, and that women are often under more pressure than men. One of the managers (P5) claimed: “I think that this [bullying] is very widespread in Kyrgyzstan or at least in Bishkek to my knowledge, and [bullying] is very obvious, I mean they don’t try to hide it”.

Finally, several respondents (3) talked about women being under more pressure than men in terms of workplace bullying in organizations in Bishkek. The following excerpt illustrates a personal case example from the experience of a woman manager:

It’s often due to our national culture, again, I’ll give an example… the position was the same, the responsibility was the same—and here is a male figure. If a little more responsibility is given to a girl, naturally, the man starts to react very aggressively because he believes he is superior. This is more about gender equality, but nevertheless, jokes, sarcasm, and reminders that ‘you are a woman’ are very common. For example, I was assigned to organize one of the banquets; this is your task, you do it according to standard, you go, and you do it. A male colleague was given a slightly different task—maybe with less responsibility—but nonetheless, this is also a task he should have gone and done it. Instead, the person just pressures me, saying literally, ‘Why are you interfering? This shouldn’t concern you; you won’t cope, you won’t succeed.’ Such things were said openly because ‘you are a woman! You should, so to speak, know your place’.

(P5)

3.3. Managers Expect Employees to Be Able to Resolve the Conflicts Among Themselves, Denying the Role of the Organization and Management in Dealing with Bullying

As noted in the literature, workplace bullying may not be recognized as an issue because neither organizations nor individuals within them know how to deal with it. Such an approach leads to the failure of organizations to unambiguously address the problem, despite the damage to individuals and organizations [38]. Managers in many cases expected employees to be able to resolve conflicts among themselves, misrecognizing bullying as occasional interpersonal conflict and denying the role of the organization and management in dealing with bullying. Some managers in our study talked about bullying as a rare interpersonal issue between employees:

Yes, there is bullying, but it happens very rarely. And most of the time it comes between employees, not from the employer or manager, but between employees. Mostly it comes from people who have been working in the same place for many years and a new person joins their team…

(P1)

An interesting narrative emerged further on from this manager, suggesting that if employees with different backgrounds from the rest of the group come into a company, it may contribute to a hostile organizational climate that eventually leads to their withdrawal from that environment. The quote below is somewhat normalizing the situation of bullying or conflict and employees leaving the organization due to a hostile culture:

New employees simply merge on their own, they just voluntarily leave, because, given this unhealthy atmosphere in the department, it’s like the person doesn’t want to work any longer. We’ve been losing a lot of good employees, and it’s mainly due to the old ones who have already served three years, and they don’t want to get any innovations, they don’t want to adjust to new standards, because every new employee wants to introduce some new things, systematize something, digitalization and all that, but they don’t want to do it.

(P5)

The above quote highlights a detached approach of a manager, where conflict between employees is presented as somewhat expected and not worthy of ethical consideration or attention from management, with employees framed as responsible for the conflict and its resolution. This position, in our opinion, stems again from the lack of information, experience with workplace bullying, and training among managers to deal with such cases.

This case provides a good example of how bullying is prevalent in stressful work environments and situations where the immediate supervisor avoids intervening and managing such situations. As reported in Longaker (2017), the way managers respond to employee concerns and suggestions has a significant impact on organizational well-being, particularly in terms of whether employees leave or stay [63]. Employees are more likely to leave or remain silent when managers fail to adequately respond to their concerns. This supports the idea that management behavior affects organizational well-being and has consequences for organizational climate [63].

Throughout our interviews, we observed a position of limited managerial involvement, especially in terms of proactivity and outreach. Managers assumed a passive position, waiting for employees to file a complaint, while denying the existence of clear mechanisms for filing complaints and procedures for case investigation. Respondents were not able to describe any specific procedure for filing complaints apart from an abstract notion of an employee coming to complain to an HR manager. Consequently, several managers in our study (3) mentioned that “employees [typically] keep silence” whenever they experience bullying or similar behavior. “They simply do not come forward to report the problem; they prefer not to discuss it” (P8). This was demonstrated in the following words:

There was one case in my practice where the employee simply left, the person didn’t complain, there was nothing, he just departed, and that was it.

(P1)

Such an attitude of disengagement on the part of human resources makes bullying a private matter for employees, which they are expected to handle on their own. As a result of the lack of attention, bullying may recur if the situation is not properly addressed and the perpetrator is not penalized. Consequently, this leads to a culture of tolerance for rude, aggressive, and ignorant behavior, and a culture in which reporting bullying is unacceptable, where people assume that an organization is bullying-free if no one has reported anything. The subtlety of bullying can also lead victims to doubt themselves and feel embarrassed about reporting their concerns to management:

Our victim of bullying didn’t complain, she didn’t come to me herself… The person shut down and didn’t talk about it, her community complained about it, about the fact that she didn’t fit in with us. If in the classic it happens that they come and say that I’m not okay with it, I feel bad… Still, even when there were conversations with her, she was saying that everything is okay, everything is fine, I can manage everything…

(P9)

In the quote above, the (added) emphasis highlights the expectation of a manager that the victim of bullying should adopt a proactive position when facing bullying at the workplace. Given that none of our respondents could describe a case where bullying was identified, correctly labeled, and investigated in favor of a victim, this suggests that managers may hold a stereotyped understanding of a “classic” bullying scenario and may fail to recognize the cases they witness as such.

Discussing specific cases, respondents often referred to situations in which employees did not complain, and management attempted to resolve the issue by transferring individuals between departments. In some cases, management made little effort to investigate and resolve the issue and instead encouraged the employee to leave, as in the case below:

If we consider what measures we are taking here specifically in our field and, in general, in many hotels—it’s just a change of department. Unlike us, most people change departments only once; if it doesn’t work out, they are simply asked to leave. Often, it happens that they are not even transferred but are just asked to go. No one usually looks into the reasons for the bullying, why it happens…

(P8)

Finally, it is worth noting that managers in our study admitted that they were not sufficiently trained to deal with situations that escalated or could escalate into bullying. As an HR manager from a hotel articulated:

We don’t have this business ethic… Training sessions are conducted exceedingly rarely. Consequently, it is very difficult for many people in human resources to know and consider what action to take in cases of bullying

(P1)

4. Discussion

The main goal of this study was to examine the prevalence of bullying in the workplace in a number of organizations in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. This study also explored how managers describe their experience in terms of workplace bullying prevention and investigation, the usage of particular organizational policies related to bullying prevention, and their role and involvement in cases of bullying. The quantitative findings informed the qualitative phase by identifying patterns of discrepancy between behavioral exposure (NAQ-R scores) and subjective labeling of bullying, which were subsequently explored in interviews with HR managers.

Our analysis suggests a very high prevalence of bullying at the workplace—from 60 to 90 percent of participants have experienced workplace bullying in some form based on the instrument cutoff score or personal identification, suggesting that bullying is very prevalent among the employees of organizations in Bishkek. These findings should be considered in the context of the fact that the term ‘bullying’ and the knowledge related to its characteristics are not widespread across organizations in Kyrgyzstan, which was supported by the qualitative findings in this study as well. Although a high prevalence of bullying (over 50%) based on NAQ-R cut-offs has been previously reported in other studies [11,59], the prevalence reported in this study is high in comparison to most other studies. The fact that the respondents scored significantly higher on the severity of bullying when asked about specific acts on the NAQ-R than when asked about bullying in general might suggest several explanations. First, it might point to a reduced recognition of certain behaviors as workplace bullying. Also, the recruitment method for this study might have affected the high levels of reported victimization—the respondents were invited to participate voluntarily, and this might have resulted in a higher proportion of respondents experiencing bullying at the time of the survey and thus being more motivated to participate.

The findings of this study highlight the persistent complexity of workplace bullying and the challenges organizations face in recognizing and addressing it effectively. The analysis of interviews with managers suggests that workplace bullying remains insufficiently understood and often poorly identified within organizational contexts. Managers frequently misinterpret bullying as ordinary interpersonal conflict or communication difficulties, which contributes to the normalization or minimization of harmful behaviors. This lack of recognition can lead to significant negative consequences for employees’ well-being, workplace relationships, and organizational functioning.

The two themes identified in the analysis illustrate key barriers to effective intervention. First, the results indicate that workplace bullying is often unrecognized or misinterpreted by managers, reflecting limited awareness of how bullying manifests and how it differs from routine conflict. This finding is consistent with existing research suggesting that ambiguity around definitions and thresholds for bullying can impede early identification and response. Second, many managers in the study appeared to expect employees to resolve interpersonal conflicts independently, thereby positioning bullying primarily as an individual rather than an organizational issue. Such perspectives may contribute to organizational inaction and allow harmful patterns to persist. Additionally, almost all participants pointed out the lack of specific internal policies defining and preventing workplace bullying.

Available evidence [19,20,21] suggests that organizational hierarchies inherited from Soviet administrative systems, combined with ongoing institutional transitions, may shape how interpersonal conflict is experienced and reported. In settings characterized by high power distance, such as organizational structures, limited formalized psychosocial risk management, and uneven implementation of HR policies, negative workplace behaviors may be more likely to be normalized or under-recognized rather than explicitly labeled as bullying. These contextual conditions may help explain the relatively high prevalence rates observed in the present study, as employees may experience a gap between experienced and interpreted range of behaviors as bullying compared to contexts with more established conceptual and regulatory frameworks. The findings also suggest that workplace bullying in this context is embedded within broader cultural legacies and practices that normalize hierarchy, silence subordinate voices, and discourage formal reporting, thereby sustaining conditions in which harmful behaviors remain unaddressed.

The findings suggest that workplace bullying in this context is embedded within broader cultural and institutional legacies that normalize hierarchical relations, constrain subordinate voice, and discourage formal reporting, thereby sustaining conditions in which harmful behaviors may remain unaddressed. Cross-cultural research indicates that the acceptability and interpretation of workplace bullying vary significantly across cultural settings, with dimensions such as power distance shaping whether negative acts are recognized as abusive or tolerated as legitimate managerial behavior [64,65]. In post-socialist contexts, these dynamics are further reinforced by institutional continuities in which authority relations remain strongly centralized and weakly contested, and where employee voice mechanisms are limited [20,66].

In Central Asia specifically, these patterns are embedded in broader political-economic structures characterized by personalized and hierarchical governance, where authority is reproduced through patronage networks and informal dependencies rather than formal institutional accountability [67]. Such structures intersect with persistent gender- and status-based inequalities, in which women, younger employees, and lower-status individuals are disproportionately exposed to asymmetries of power that are socially normalized and institutionally tolerated [66,68]. Within this broader context, workplace relations are shaped by culturally embedded expectations of hierarchy and compliance, which can render disrespectful or coercive behaviors socially unremarkable or even legitimate expressions of authority, rather than violations of organizational norms [64,65].

5. Conclusions

The quantitative results indicate a very high prevalence of workplace bullying, with approximately 60–90% of participants reporting exposure to negative acts in some form. These levels are higher than those reported in many international studies, although comparable elevated prevalence rates have been documented in some contexts using similar measurement approaches. Importantly, the discrepancy between higher scores on behavioral items of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) and lower self-labeling of “being bullied” suggests reduced recognition and labeling of certain behaviors as workplace bullying. This may reflect limited familiarity with the concept in the local context, as also supported by qualitative findings. In addition, the voluntary recruitment approach may have contributed to self-selection bias, potentially increasing participation among individuals with stronger exposure to workplace conflict or bullying.

The qualitative findings further highlight that workplace bullying is frequently under-recognized or misinterpreted by managers, often being framed as ordinary interpersonal conflict or communication breakdowns rather than as a systemic organizational issue. Managers also tended to emphasize individual responsibility for resolving conflict, which may inadvertently contribute to normalization or under-addressing of harmful behaviors. Together, these findings suggest that both conceptual ambiguity and organizational response patterns play a role in sustaining workplace environments where bullying may persist unchallenged.

Overall, the study underscores that workplace bullying is not only a matter of individual interactions but is embedded within broader organizational cultures and systems of recognition, interpretation, and response. Strengthening organizational awareness is therefore essential, particularly in contexts where formal understanding of workplace bullying remains limited. Prior research indicates that clear policies, accessible reporting mechanisms, and targeted managerial training are central to effective prevention and intervention. However, the present findings suggest that such measures must be accompanied by efforts to build shared conceptual understanding of workplace bullying itself, including its behavioral indicators and its distinction from ordinary workplace conflict.

From a practical perspective, these results highlight the need for organizations to move beyond informal or reactive approaches and toward more structured and accountable systems for addressing bullying. This includes not only the development of formal policies but also active implementation through managerial capacity-building and organizational commitment to consistent enforcement. Without such alignment, policies alone are unlikely to translate into meaningful change.

Pathways for the cultural governance of workplace bullying should therefore begin with cultural attitudes, language dissemination, and the reshaping of organizational culture, so that institutions do not rely only on formal rules but also build shared meanings, public vocabulary, and everyday norms that make bullying visible and unacceptable.

This suggests a staged approach in which awareness-building and conceptual clarification come first, followed by policy implementation and then ongoing cultural reinforcement through leadership behavior, communication practices, and routine training.

In conclusion, addressing workplace bullying in this context requires a dual focus: enhancing individual managerial awareness and strengthening organizational systems of accountability. Developing shared definitions, improving recognition of bullying behaviors, and equipping managers with practical tools for intervention are critical steps toward fostering safer and more respectful work environments in organizations in Bishkek.