Exploring Psychological Violence in the Workplace: Implications for Mental Health and Organizational Well-being

Abstract

This study examines workplace violence from the perspective of occupational health psychology, focusing on its psychological impact and the development of intervention strategies. Using a historical approach, the research reconstructs the organizational discourse of violence by analyzing how subjectivity is controlled within workplace contexts through language, actions, and power dynamics. Workplace violence, including mobbing and psychological harassment, emerges as a systemic issue driven by structural and symbolic violence, deeply ingrained in organizational frameworks and supported by scientific narratives and self-regulation mechanisms. The findings indicate that such violence not only perpetuates but also institutionalizes docile work subjectivities, viewed as desirable in many organizational settings. The study provides a novel contribution by emphasizing the interplay between occupational health psychology and the broader sociocultural contexts that shape workplace interactions. It underscores the psychosocial risks posed by workplace violence to employees' mental health, organizational cohesion, and overall productivity. The conclusions advocate for comprehensive intervention strategies that address the root causes of workplace violence, promote healthier organizational environments, and reduce psychosocial risks. By integrating empirical insights and theoretical perspectives, this study offers valuable implications for policymakers, organizational leaders, and researchers seeking to mitigate the negative impacts of workplace violence.

Introduction

Workplace violence, particularly its psychological manifestations, has increasingly become a significant area of concern for researchers and policymakers worldwide. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), workplace violence affects millions of workers globally and presents a substantial risk to mental health, productivity, and organizational cohesion (ILO, 2019). For instance, recent data indicates that approximately 30% of employees globally have experienced some form of workplace violence during their careers (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020). Such alarming statistics underline the urgency of addressing this pervasive issue.

Psychological violence, often referred to as workplace mobbing or harassment, has been conceptualized through various theoretical lenses. Clinical psychology often focuses on individual psychopathology and coping mechanisms (Leymann, 1990), while occupational health psychology emphasizes the broader psychosocial factors contributing to emotional distress and diminished productivity in work environments (Porras Velasquez, 2024). This study adopts the latter perspective, treating workplace violence as a systemic issue that arises from power dynamics within organizations, directly impacting individual and collective well-being.

In the context of Colombia, the sociocultural and historical backdrop of systemic violence further complicates the issue. Colombia's period of "La Violencia" (1948–1958) symbolizes how entrenched violence has influenced societal norms, including workplace interactions (Porras Velasquez, 2023). These historical influences shape both the prevalence and perception of workplace violence today, making it critical to explore interventions tailored to this unique context.

A global perspective also reveals variations in the conceptualization and management of workplace violence. For instance, while Scandinavian countries have implemented robust workplace anti-bullying policies since the 1980s (Einarsen et al., 2011), other regions, including parts of Latin America, are still grappling with foundational issues such as underreporting and limited legal frameworks (Guevara, 2010). This study aims to contribute to the growing body of literature by analyzing psychological violence within Colombian workplaces, offering insights relevant both locally and globally.

There is great interest among human behavior researchers in identifying the different expressions and contexts in which violence emerges, as well as the constant desire to propose and promote the design of intervention strategies with the aim of generating conditions that allow its prevention (Porras Velasquez, 2022a). Within these intervention strategies, highly varied theoretical positions and research methodologies are combined, which, without a doubt, have contributed to enriching our framework of analysis and interpretation of the phenomenon in question.

Despite increased scholarly attention, identifying and addressing psychological violence remains challenging due to its covert nature and the tendency to normalize harmful behaviors in competitive organizational cultures (Luna, 2003). Common manifestations include abuse of power, economic threats, and persistent verbal harassment, which often result in deteriorated mental health, reduced productivity, and organizational dysfunction (Hirigoyen, 2008). This study seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and practical interventions by exploring the psychosocial mechanisms underlying workplace violence. Given these complexities, this documentary research employs a psychosocial lens to analyze workplace violence, emphasizing its detrimental effects on mental health and organizational outcomes. By integrating empirical evidence, theoretical discussions, and practical recommendations, the study aims to advance both academic and policy discourses on this pressing issue.

On the other hand, as we all know, the interpersonal relationships that arise in the competitive and globalized labor context are not always harmonious among the members that make up an organization. This situation directly affects the productivity and mental health of individuals, groups and organizations (Porras Velasquez & Parra D’aleman, 2018b). For this reason, the objective of this documentary-type research was to analyze psychological violence in work contexts from a psychosocial perspective.

Occupational health psychology and working conditions

When reviewing the scientific literature of the research carried out in our country, we found that in Colombia the first systematic studies on occupational health are reported by Villalobos (2004); Marulanda (2007); Andrade Jaramillo & Gómez (2008); Briceno (2003); Charria, Sarsosa & Arenas (2011); Gutiérrez & Viloria-Daza (2014); Hermosa and Perilla (2015). While in Spain studies on psychosocial risk factors have been recently carried out by Pozo Muñoz &; Morillejo (2001); Salanova (2009); Moreno Jiménez & Báez León (2010); Moreno Jiménez (2011); Gil-Monte (2012). The allusion to the work carried out in Spain is due to the great influence of the literature originating in that country on our research. Particularly those coming from the last-mentioned author.

According to the research carried out by Hermosa & Perilla (2015) The purpose of occupational health psychology is to develop, maintain and promote the mental health of employees and their families, a purpose that requires an inter and transdisciplinary approach, whose focus is primary prevention in order to create safe and secure work environments. healthy that guarantee the health of workers (p. 253).

Now, in principle, it can be stated that work psychology seeks to understand the psychosocial impact of work activity on the psychological structure of workers (Porras Velásquez, 2012a; 2014). Likewise, it can be said that work studies from a psychosocial perspective have become a pillar of intervention proposals that promote people's work well-being (Porras Velásquez & Parra D'aleman, 2018a). The contributions of this new perspective have provided a broader look at the area of ??human management from different approaches, allowing the study of new aspects of the person in their work environments and, above all, both the positive and negative effects of the working conditions in the mental health of its members.

On the other hand, and from a much broader perspective, it has recently been proposed that organizational psychology has as its main objective the study of human behavior in work contexts. In this sense, psychological studies in the field of organizations seek to establish cause-effect relationships between individual, psychosocial and organizational factors with productivity and quality of life, in terms of work well-being. That is, one action leads to another and gives it different connotations in the same context, for this reason, it is important to know the behaviors that are manifested in working hours and the well-being of the people who work in the organization (Karasek, 1979; 1990).

According to Porras Velásquez & Parra D'aleman (2018) and Porras Velásquez (2016, 2023c), mental health at work in companies has become the fundamental basis for achieving objectives, monitoring the lives of workers and balancing in the psychological, emotional and social aspect, it is the function of work psychology to improve the work performance of its collaborators in the company.

Although it is true that the Industrial Revolution brought with it significant changes both in the conditions of production and in the organization of work in factories. This era opened new horizons for psychology regarding its role in society and its continuous improvement. Of course, it is necessary to consider ideological aspects in this development of the discipline (Porras Velásquez, 2009; 2011), which has a great influence on modern human management practices. Now, in the era of knowledge and information technologies, there are other factors, both internal and external to work, that affect not only the mental health of workers but also their performance and effectiveness.

The OIT (International Labor Organization) defines work as: “the set of human activities, remunerated or unpaid, that produce goods or services in an economy or that satisfy the needs of a community or provide the necessary means of livelihood for individuals.” (OIT, 2010). In this sense, it is important to highlight that human work “satisfies” or always seeks to satisfy several needs simultaneously. Where the paid activity becomes the employment of human resources, to produce goods or provide services in different ways and in different contexts and working conditions.

Since the proposal of the theory of human relations, administrative thought and practices have widely understood the role of the work group in relational dynamics and production levels. In this order of ideas, socialization at work according to Porras Velásquez (2015; 2017a), implies that perception, motivation, communication and leadership are going to be a key piece in the understanding of human behavior in work and social contexts. about all its implications on the mental, physical and social health of workers. For some authors, since the emergence of the theory of human relations, people have begun to think about a psychologically healthier environment for collaborators.

Perception as a basic psychological process involves the interpretation and organization of external reality in the internal world of each subject, for this reason, if a group of workers perceives the work reality as threatening to their health and integrity, their body reacts by raising levels. of stress and deteriorating the quality of their work. Consequently, and as a preventive measure, we seek to promote healthy coping styles to face the challenges and efforts that each work requires (Porras Velásquez, 2012; 2016a).

Finally, when we talk about occupational or work health, it is important to note that a psychosocial risk factor is a condition internal or external to the worker and/or the job that increases the probability of occurrence of a particular event, which may be an accident or an occupational disease. In short, according to Porras Velásquez (2013; 2014a), working implies a risk for people's general health, but these risks can be controlled, reduced and even eliminated with good research support and with the scientific rigor that Psychology as a discipline can provide entrepreneurs and workers.

Three forms of workplace violence

Argentine lawyer Patricia Sáenz emphatically points out that workplace violence threatens human rights, decent work and the integrity of people. It seriously affects their physical and mental health, work and social life, and the entire organization. It is a form of abuse of power whose purpose is to exclude or subdue the other; It can manifest itself as physical aggression, sexual harassment or psychological violence. It can occur both vertically (ascending or descending) and between peers, and be exercised by action or omission (Sáenz, 2014).

1. Physical aggression: Any conduct that directly or indirectly is aimed at causing physical harm to the worker or worker.
2. Sexual harassment: Any repeated behavior or comment with a sexual connotation based on power, not consented to by the person receiving it.
3. Psychological harassment: Situation in which a person or group of people exert moral, verbal, alternate or continuous, recurring and sustained abuse over a worker or worker seeking to destabilize, isolate, destroy their reputation, deteriorate their self-esteem and reduce their work capacity to be able to gradually degrade and eliminate it from the place it occupies.

Concept and Historical Developmetnt of Workplace Violent

Several researchers on workplace violence agree that the issue of workplace bullying has been studied since the 1980s, in Norway and Sweden where research has been conducted since 1984, led by Heinz Leymann, a Swedish scientist who carried out studies on bullying at work, who presented publications from 1984 to 1996 on the subject from the clinical approaches of psychology: epidemiological, organizational and administrative.

However, workplace mobbing can be interpreted as a form of psychological harassment, which is essentially a detriment to "human dignity". According to Leymann, he defined the word mobbing as "the chaining of intents or consummated hostile actions, expressed or manifested, by one or more people, over a fairly short period of time, towards a third party: the target" (1984, p. 4).

What is workplace violence?

According to Guevara (2010), this issue arouses little interest in some populations such as Colombia, due to the fact that we are normally passive subjects of acts of violence and we do not notice it because we are used to certain behaviors that we already find as an integral part of the act daily and neither offend nor worry us. According to Guevara, since the first symptoms of discomfort in the staff appear in the work environment, as a result of actions directed against the privacy, honor, image or dignity of the human person, we must be alert to prevent a climate of harassment and disrespect for the rights of others develops.

For the World Health Organization -WHO- in its 2020 Report on Violence, violence is the deliberate use of physical force or power, whether threatened or effective, against oneself, another person or a group or community, which causes or has a high probability of causing injury, death, psychological damage, developmental disorders or deprivation and violates the right to health and life of the population. As can be seen, workplace violence is a phenomenon of great breadth and complexity. This is due to the multiplicity of factors and elements of an individual, economic, social and political order that take place there.

In other words, workplace violence is a form of abuse of power whose purpose is to exclude or subjugate the other, it can manifest as physical aggression, sexual harassment or psychological violence, it can occur both vertically (ascending or descending) and between peers, can be exercised by action or omission, affects the health and well-being of the people who work, and constitutes a violation of human and labor rights.

Workplace violence as a social construction

Beyond the classic definition, of aggression as a behavior that causes damage (physical or psychological) in an organism, intentionally. It is necessary not to forget those cases in which extreme violence that is not usually identified as aggression coincides with institutional violence, which describe torture as a means to maintain social order and defend the dominant production system (Porras Velasquez & Parra D’aleman, 2019a).

Now, if we say that aggression is an action that causes harm and is intentional, considering that a behavior is aggressive not only means describing a fact, but implies making an evaluation judgment with certain consequences. In particular, if a behavior is judged as aggressive, the idea that it must be punished is shared. If the same conduct is judged justifiable, one may even agree that it should be allowed. Therefore, what has immediate consequences is the fact of identifying a behavior as aggressive or non-aggressive, and the problem is not so much to prove that it has been an action that has caused harm as to prove its intentionality. From this perspective, violence is reduced to aggressive behavior (Porras Velasquez & Parra D’aleman, 2017).

However, it must be taken into account that the criteria for labeling a behavior as aggression or violence are not external to the people who use them. In this sense, the criteria used by the observed will be different from those used by the agent, and different from those used by the recipient of the aggression. Each position constructs an account of the situation and an interpretation of the behavior that do not coincide. In many cases we do not have direct access to the situation of aggression, but rather we access it only through the accounts of the people directly or indirectly involved.

Direct experience makes us think that it is not so difficult for us to agree on what we consider aggressive or violent behavior and what is not. The criteria we use to “decide” whether a behavior is behavior or not are three: 1) the intention to harm. (It is not easy to determine what has been the intention of the act, action); 2) the damage as a real fact. (Many times, the damage is not visible and it is not easy to agree on what is damage and what is not; 3) the violation of social norms. In short, in the same social or work situation, some rules can be followed and others violated, according to the consensus reached. (Porras Velasquez, 2014a).

Despite this consensus to conceptualize violence, it is difficult to agree when it comes to identifying whether a particular act is violence or not, among other things it depends on the point of view of the person who labels it. The state of mind, the value system, empathy with the aggressor or with the victim, etc. are some of the many subjective factors involved in the interpretation of human behavior. For now, it is easily understandable that the conceptualization of violence has a clear evaluative bias (Porras Velasquez & Parra D’aleman 2018a). By definition it is presented as a form of negative behavior, which has to be reduced or, at least, controlled.

Defining workplace mobbing

This concept was developed and promoted in the workplace by Heinz Leymann in 1984, a German psychiatrist, who initially designated this phenomenon of psychological abuse in the workplace as "psychological terror." Leymann (1990) defined psychological mobbing as psychological workplace terror in which a person, or a group of people, exerts extreme psychological violence on another person in the workplace in a systematic way (at least once). per week) and for a long time (more than 6 months).

History of workplace mobbing

In general terms, the concept of workplace mobbing refers to that situation in which one or more people exercise extreme psychological violence, systematically and recurrently, over a long period of time, on another person in the position of work. According to the descriptions of researchers in this field. The objective in this case is to intimidate, reduce, intimidate, emotionally and intellectually consume the victim, with the ultimate goal of throwing them out or eliminating them from the organization. In other words, the expression "mobbing" refers to workplace bullying used with the meaning of forcing someone to do something that she does not want, cornering her or pressuring her to make the decision to leave her job (Porras Velasquez, 2015; 2017a).

It is obvious that the workplace is where people spend a large part of their lives, that this place also offers the opportunity to establish interpersonal relationships within a socio-labor organization. But, at the same time, the workplace can become one of these environments where psychological harassment or mobbing can manifest (Porras Velasquez, 2016, 2017b).

Workplace mobbing is a type of workplace violence that refers to the behavior of an individual who uses his power and manipulates others to satisfy his interest. In addition, it does so through systematic harassment through allusions, disqualifications, inconsideration towards the person who is the victim of this situation. Of course, it is not a new phenomenon, but rather a phenomenon of society in general (Porras Velasquez, 2022; 2024c).

Psychological mobbing affects the work environment of the company, deteriorates the cohesion and quality of interpersonal relationships, and increases accidents in the workplace due to carelessness, negligence, or lack of attention or distraction (Porras Velasquez & Parra, 2018). According to Uribe Prado (2011), the company is responsible for guaranteeing a healthy and adequate work environment. To deal with cases of psychological harassment in the workplace, it is necessary to propose truly preventive and intervention strategies that require the involvement of all agents within the organization. For this author, mobbing is a phenomenon that occurs systematically in current labor dynamics and therefore becomes a silent enemy of labor relations (Porras Velasquez, 2017, 2024a).

For her part, the French psychiatrist Marie France Hirigoyen defines moral mobbing as: "any abusive behavior that, due to its repetition and systematicity, threatens the dignity or mental or physical integrity of a person, endangering their employment or degrading the work environment, supposes a moral behavior of psychological harassment” (Hirigoyen, 2008, p, 12).

For Giraldo (2005), the phenomenon of workplace mobbing is a dysfunctional and frequent situation in the organizational context that, in addition, is perpetuated and fueled by the symmetrical escalation of violence that Colombia is experiencing. For this author, addressing this phenomenon is an opportunity to fulfill the social, disciplinary and business responsibility of organizational psychology in order to improve the quality of working life.

Workplace mobbing, in accordance with what has been described up to now, is understood as a phenomenon that deals with emotional abuse and aggressive and hostile behaviors that are constantly exercised between co-workers and/or from a superior towards his subordinate, accompanied by of negative and unethical communications (González, 2003; Hirigoyen, 2008). As can be seen in this definition, workplace violence implies the organizational structure and culture, therefore, the responsibility of the company, in the generation and promotion of occupational health and the quality of working life in general.

Legal Aspects of Psychological Violence in The Workplace

From a legal point of view, in Colombian labor law, the figure of "mobbing" is regulated by Law 1010 of 2006, which aims to: "define, prevent, correct and punish the various forms of aggression, mistreatment, humiliation, inconsiderate and offensive treatment, and in general any insult to human dignity that is exerted on those who carry out their economic activities in the context of a private or public employment relationship”. In the spirit of this law, it is recognized that there are various forms of harassment, which emanate from labor relations. Consequently, workplace bullying does not arise from subordinate relationships but also from coordination relationships.

The second article of Law 1010 of 2006 states that, in Colombian legislation, workplace mobbing shall be understood as any persistent and demonstrable conduct, exerted on a worker by his employer, a boss or immediate or mediate hierarchical superior, a co-worker or a subordinate, aimed at instilling fear, intimidation, terror and anguish, causing work harm, generating demotivation at work, or inducing the resignation of the same. Importance is given to the persistent and demonstrable term. That is, it must be of a public nature (Motta, 2008).

In short, in Colombia workplace mobbing is a new issue. Of which there is little jurisprudence and little doctrine of labor law. Psychologists are pioneers in the study of this phenomenon and have shown that there is a great diversity of forms of mistreatment in labor relations that affect the health of workers. The growing number of cases reported in the mass media have made a phenomenon fashionable that is certainly not new, but whose incidence and growth in recent years is truly alarming. For this reason, it is opportune to open an academic space to reflect more broadly on this matter.

In general terms, workplace mobbing can be understood as all those repeated behaviors generally coming from a hierarchical superior, which have the sole purpose of discrediting, undermining or disregarding an individual or individuals, before their social work group. Of course, there is neither a unanimous definition nor a fully finished concept, but rather approximations for a conceptual construction in process (Porras Velasquez, 2024b).

Consequences Of Psychological Violence In The Work Context

The consequences of psychological violence at work (harassment, psychological intimidation) at work can be of a different nature and can be projected onto very different areas, beyond the company. Consequently, not only the worker who becomes victim suffers the effects of harassment, but the organization itself, the family and society in general will be affected, in the short, medium or long term (Peralta, 2004).

Psychological violence at work does not have the same consequences or cause the same reactions in all people, mainly because the differences between coping skills, abilities and resources between them can be very different; however, its consequences are devastating in most cases.

Workers who suffer psychological violence at work go through situations of anxiety, that is, by an unpleasant emotional state, characterized by the experience of diffuse fear and by various somatic sensations activated by the perception of risk. It is an adaptive response of the organism to a real threat (Porras Velásquez & Parra, 2019). In other words, the way in which this phenomenon affects the work capacity of the worker, considerably decreasing their efficiency, deteriorating their physical and mental health, translates into an increase in the psychological deterioration of employees affected by workplace bullying (Piñuel, 2001).

For Hirigoyen (2008), among the specific consequences of workers subjected to bullying, symptoms very close to stress appear at first, which materialize in the form of fatigue, sleep problems, migraines, digestive disorders, etc. Likewise, there may be cases in which suicidal ideas appear in the victim, which in extreme situations can be put into practice. In fact, there are no reliable data on the percentage of suicides involving situations of mobbing suffered by the victim.

On a social level, it is possible that these individuals become very susceptible and hypersensitive to criticism, with attitudes of distrust and behaviors of isolation, avoidance, withdrawal or, on the other hand, aggressiveness or hostility along with other manifestations of social maladjustment. Feelings of anger and resentment and desire for revenge on the aggressor(s) are common (García Rivera & Porras, 2019).

If we consider the consequences of psychological harassment at work, a characteristic form of stress in terms of conduct disorder, the enormous emotional and psychological pressure makes these people, given the impossibility of modifying the stressor, seek various addictions as an escape valve, as well as consumption of analgesics, stimulants, among other aspects (Salamanca Quiñones & Porras Velasquez, 2019). Research carried out indicates the link between work or professional activities and these addictions, depressions and even suicidal behaviors (Luna, 2003).

The mobbing is much more than aggressive and unwanted behavior or a set of aggressive acts against people's work performance and morale in work contexts. It is a way of exercising symbolic, structural and physical violence in the workplace that threatens freedom, the free development of personality, the emotional well-being and mental health of people at work. Because violence implies an intentional, premeditated and systematic act of controlling the subjectivity of the other person with the purpose of subduing them and dominating their will both in the work space and in other spheres of life. While an aggressive act or behavior is generally a defensive action against an attack, insult or mistreatment received and that is perceived as a threat, real possibility of damage or harm. (Porras Velasquez, 2010; 2023b).

Workplace violence as an expression of symbolic violence implies a social, historical and cultural context that supports particular ways of relating between the people who make up a business organization. For this reason, I consider it important and pertinent to approach the study of workplace harassment from the perspective of symbolic violence that implies safety and health at work (Porras Velasquez, 2011; Salamanca Quiñones & Porras Velasquez, 2023).

Conclusion and Recommendation

In the first place, psychological violence at work can originate, in the last instance, from the excessive use of the legitimate power of direction possessed by the administrative authority and not from the use of physical force. Therefore, it is not power or the relationships derived from it, but the use of power that produces workplace violence (Porras Velasquez, 2024a). In this sense, the difference between violence and power, in its manifestations in the workplace, is in that "use of power" when it is done in an organized, controlled manner, in accordance with regulations and the law, and not in an arbitrary manner, excessive and overreaching.

Secondly, psychological violence at work presents a wide variety of forms of expression, which according to the guidelines of the International Labor Organization -ILO- refer particularly to coercion and psychological harassment. For other authors, workplace violence is more directly related to mistreatment, humiliation, harassment, to analyze this topic of everyday life in today's world (Porras Velasquez, 2009; 2012; 2023a).

Third, in the current conditions of salaried work (employment), understood as the set of psychological, social, economic, legal, technological characteristics, etc. within the framework of which the work activity is carried out. New work experiences and new forms of labor relations emerge, which decisively influence the daily life of workers and organizational dynamics (Porras Velasquez, 2018; 2016a). For this reason, any study carried out on insertion into the "new", "dynamic" and "changing" labor market must consider the transformations that have occurred in society in general and in production systems in particular.

Finally, workplace violence such as harassment or mobbing is just one of the current manifestations of the effects of the new working conditions on the mental health of workers (Parra D’aleman & Porras, 2018). Ultimately, this is the scenario of a labor market that displaces people between job insecurity and social exclusion, articulating this situation to the study of the psychosocial risks of work in today's world.