Bad boss or workplace bully? Telling the difference is key

Workplace bullying is nothing new and while it has recently enjoyed more prominence as an organisational challenge, distinguishing between a difficult or demanding manager and someone who is systematically targeting an employee remains one of the biggest obstacles to dealing with it.

Governance and risk professional Kovini Moodley of Boss Brains South Africa said the distinction was not about whether a boss was tough, uncompromising, or expected exceptionally high standards, but rather whether criticism remained focused on the work or was repeatedly directed at the individual.

“The line is not intensity. It is where most people get confused, including well-meaning human resources practitioners, and it is also why so many complaints get lost.

“Demanding is not the opposite of decent. Some of the best leaders I have ever worked for were extremely hard on the work, and I am a considerably better professional for it.

“The line of distinction usually is direction and pattern,” she said. “A demanding manager attacks the work; a bully attacks the worker and demeans them through the process.”

Moodley said a legitimate manager might reject an employee’s analysis, explain where it failed and clearly state what needed to be corrected and by when.

Bullying looked different.

“The other tells you that you are not good enough for this role, points out spelling errors and often lacks the technical knowledge to debate effectively, all in a tone carefully calibrated so that it can later be described as ‘feedback’ at a later stage.”

You are not good enough

Workplace bullying has gained greater legal recognition in South Africa since the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the World of Work was published in March 2022.

Moodley said the Code explicitly naming bullying as harassment gave employees a framework that had previously been missing.

She cautioned employers against interpreting increased complaints as proof that organisational culture was deteriorating.

“Reporting is slowly rising, and boards need to be aware that a rise in reports is not evidence that an organisation is getting worse; it is usually the first sign of evidence that it is getting safer.

“Reports are a lagging indicator of harm and a leading indicator of trust. Silence is also not a clean audit result; it remains an unmeasured exposure of reputational damage.”

The 3-test bully tell

She uses three tests when mentoring women in particular who suspect they are being targeted at work.

The first is whether the same standards apply equally to everyone.

“A standard that arrives with your name on it is not a standard. It is a targeting mechanism,” she said.

The second is whether the behaviour changes when other people are present.

“Demanding managers are demanding consistently, in a meeting, in email and in front of peers. Bullying tends to occur where there is no record: in the corridor, on the drive to the airport, during a quick call.

“If someone’s conduct changes materially the moment a third party is present, you have your answer.”

The third test, she said, was what remained behind after a difficult interaction.

Constructive criticism, however uncomfortable, should leave an employee knowing what must be improved.

“After a hard conversation with a demanding manager, you know exactly what to fix. After a bully, you do not know what you did wrong. You only know that you are wrong. That confusion is not a side effect of the behaviour. It is the product of it.”

Other warning signs, she said, included the constant moving of performance targets, deliberately flooding or starving someone of work, removing an employee from meetings or distribution lists they previously attended, seeing their ideas later presented and praised when voiced by someone else and performance concerns suddenly emerging after an employee asserted a boundary or complained.

Moodley said criticism that continually focused on someone’s tone, manner, or presence rather than measurable output should also raise questions.

A caveat, Moodley said, was that bullying should not be judged by a single unpleasant encounter or an isolated disagreement.

Repeated behaviour should be the watching brief.

“There is a chess principle I use constantly here, in that one bad move is an incident, three moves in the same direction is a plan. Bullying is a pattern, and patterns can be read, recorded, and analysed with evidence.”