Invisible Harm: When Institutions Fail to Enact and Enforce Workplace Bullying Policy

A special issue of Societies (ISSN 2075-4698).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 October 2026 | Viewed by 1117

Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Interests: workplace bullying; race; gender; intersectionality

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Workplace bullying is a pervasive and internationally recognized problem with far-reaching consequences for individuals, organizations, and societies, and the effects of such abuse often include emotional distress, career stagnation, demotions, and even forced termination. Despite the well-documented harms, institutional responses remain uneven across global contexts. While some countries—such as Sweden, Norway, France, Turkey, Australia, and Canada—have taken progressive steps by enacting national legislation that directly addresses workplace bullying, many major economies, including the United States, India, China, and Mexico, continue to rely on fragmented or indirect legal protections. This leaves many employees vulnerable to unchecked aggression and institutional neglect.

This Special Issue, “Invisible Harm: When Institutions Fail to Enact and Enforce Workplace Bullying Policy,” seeks to examine the global policy landscape surrounding workplace bullying, and welcomes submissions that explore the legal frameworks, organizational policy implementation, institutional resistance, and the structural factors that allow bullying to persist despite increased awareness and documentation.

We especially welcome interdisciplinary approaches that draw from the following disciplines:

  • Legal studies;
  • Organizational studies;
  • Management;
  • Education;
  • Labor relations;
  • Public policy;
  • Psychology;
  • Other disciplines relevant to addressing workplace bullying and associated policy.

Comparative studies, critical policy analyses, and empirical research offering international perspectives are welcomed, and we also invite analyses that address the accountability gaps that allow workplace bullying to thrive despite the presence of policies and protections.

Full papers should have a minimum of 6000 words, including references, and must adhere to ACS edition formatting. A maximum of four tables or figures is permitted for each article.

While strong conceptual papers are welcome, this Special Issue prioritizes empirical research grounded in theory and supported by clear methodological approaches—whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods. Empirical work should include the following sections: Introduction, Literature review, Theory, Methods, Findings, and Discussion. Conceptual papers should have a well-structured argument.

The purpose of this Special Issue is to critically analyze existing policies and contribute to the development of new policy frameworks for countries where such policies are lacking or underdeveloped.

For further inquiries, please contact Dr. Leah P. Hollis at LJH5876@psu.edu with the subject line: MDPI Special Edition.

Dr. Leah P. Hollis
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as conceptual papers are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Societies is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • workplace bullying
  • policy
  • harassment
  • toxic workplace

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

27 pages, 913 KB  
Article
When Words Betray Actions: Organizational Hypocrisy and Counterproductive Work Behavior—The Indirect Roles of Organizational Silence and Job Withdrawal Behaviors in Tourism and Hospitality Organizations
by Ahmed Mohamed Hasanein and Bassam Samir Al-Romeedy
Societies 2026, 16(8), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc16080244 - 1 Aug 2026
Viewed by 397
Abstract
This study examines organizational hypocrisy (OH) in relation to counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and investigates the indirect roles of organizational silence (OS) and job withdrawal behaviors (JOW). Drawing on Social Exchange Theory, the study proposes that perceived inconsistencies between organizational values and actual [...] Read more.
This study examines organizational hypocrisy (OH) in relation to counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and investigates the indirect roles of organizational silence (OS) and job withdrawal behaviors (JOW). Drawing on Social Exchange Theory, the study proposes that perceived inconsistencies between organizational values and actual practices are associated with employee silence, withdrawal, and counterproductive work behavior. Data were collected from 437 employees working in Saudi Arabian five-star hotels and Class-A travel agencies and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results revealed that organizational hypocrisy was positively associated with organizational silence, job withdrawal behaviors, and counterproductive work behavior. Organizational silence showed significant positive relationships with both job withdrawal behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors, while job withdrawal behaviors were also positively associated with counterproductive work behavior. Furthermore, statistically significant individual indirect associations through organizational silence and job withdrawal behaviors, as well as a sequential indirect association through both variables, were identified within the proposed model. The findings extend Social Exchange Theory by providing support for an interconnected pattern of associations between perceived organizational hypocrisy, organizational silence, job withdrawal behaviors, and counterproductive work behavior. Rather than establishing a progressive temporal sequence, the results are consistent with the theoretically proposed ordering of these constructs within the model. This integrated perspective contributes to the literature by documenting individual and sequential indirect associations within a unified theoretical framework in the tourism and hospitality context. Given the cross-sectional design, however, the findings do not establish causality or confirm the temporal ordering of the examined variables. The findings also offer practical insights for managers seeking to strengthen organizational authenticity, encourage employee voice, and address employee disengagement and counterproductive work behavior. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop