Et Tu, Brute? Beyond Insecurity - Structural and Cultural Causes of Workplace Bullying

This article was originally published on hickamsdictum.com

"Et tu, Brute?" meaning "And you, Brutus?" are the famous words attributed to Julius Caesar during his assassination, symbolizing the ultimate betrayal by a trusted ally. In the context of Part 3a, this phrase reflects the emotional devastation that follows when workplace bullying arises from those who were once close collaborators or friends. Just as Caesar’s success provoked fear and jealousy in the Senate, leading to his betrayal, both high achievers and marginalized groups in modern workplaces can find themselves targeted by those threatened by their influence or differences, leading to deep personal and professional harm.

Introduction

In Parts 1, 2a and 2b of this series on workplace bullying, we explored the rise and fall of Julius Caesar, analyzing how insecurity, power struggles, and unchecked bullying contributed to his tragic end. We also examined the various forms of workplace bullying and the profile of victims, connecting these patterns to today’s organizational challenges. Now, in Part 3a, we shift our focus to the root causes of workplace bullying, drawing valuable lessons from Caesar’s story while analyzing the structural and cultural factors that allow toxic behaviors to thrive.

As we’ve discussed, the cost of workplace bullying is significant and multifaceted, impacting both individuals and organizations. On a personal level, victims often suffer from depression, anxiety, and burnout. For organizations, bullying leads to absenteeism, high turnover, reduced creativity and productivity, and legal or regulatory consequences. The long-term damage extends beyond immediate financial costs, eroding trust, innovation, and employee well-being, which ultimately compromises the organization’s ability to thrive.

In this section (Part 3a), we’ll move beyond insecurity as a driver and explore other causes of workplace bullying—ranging from poorly defined roles to top-heavy hierarchies and ineffective leadership. Understanding these factors is essential to creating healthier, more inclusive environments where toxic behaviors are less likely to take root.

Structural and Cultural Causes of Workplace Bullying

Poorly Defined Roles and Responsibilities

Have you ever found yourself in a job where you weren’t quite sure what your role was? It’s frustrating, right? When people aren’t clear on their responsibilities, confusion and conflict tend to follow. This was exactly the situation in Caesar’s time. The Senate didn’t have clear boundaries around their authority, and as Caesar’s influence grew, so did their uncertainty and resentment. They started to believe that Caesar was stepping on their toes, which ultimately led to betrayal and violence. In today’s workplaces, the same thing happens when roles are vague—it breeds frustration, power struggles, and even hostility. That’s why it’s so important for leaders to clearly define roles and responsibilities from the start.

Ineffective Leadership

Ineffective leadership can really undermine an organization (or team), especially when it tolerates or even encourages bullying. It’s a bit like what happens in a household—when kids see their parents fighting or behaving badly without conflict resolution, there’s a good chance they’ll pick up those same behaviors as they grow up. The workplace isn’t all that different. Many people tend to follow what they see, and if employees witness their leaders' or managers bullying others, it’s likely they’ll start doing the same—especially those who rank high in Dark Triad traits like narcissism, Machiavellianism, or psychopathy. Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organizations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing of senior managers to carry out their abusive and bullying behavior (Einarsen, 1999).

It’s also important to remember that leadership is subjective. What works for one person or in one environment might be seen as toxic or ineffective by others. For example, authoritarian leadership can be effective in high-pressure situations, but it may be stifling in creative or collaborative environments where communication and empowerment are key.

One common issue is promoting individuals who excel in technical/individual contributor roles but may lack the skills to manage people, such as empathy or big-picture thinking. Without proper training, these leaders may rely on directive behaviors that stifle creativity and collaboration, leading to frustration, disengagement, and even bullying. In contrast, collaborative and visionary leaders who encourage open communication can create healthier environments, but they may be seen as ineffective in more rigid organizations that favor a top-down approach.

Leadership misalignment plays a key role in workplace dynamics. Authoritarian leaders can unintentionally suppress dissent and enable bullying, while overly lenient leaders may face power struggles. The misfit between leadership styles and organizational culture often exacerbates conflicts and fosters environments where toxic behaviors flourish. This is why it is critical to have leaders on staff who understand organizational psychology.

Rome’s Senate, instead of resolving conflicts with Caesar, turned to conspiracy—a classic case of poor leadership fueling division. This breakdown fostered toxic behaviors, unchecked by constructive communication. Good leadership, by contrast, encourages open communication and resolves conflicts before they escalate into larger issues, fostering an environment of trust and inclusivity.

Overqualification

Overqualified employees bring valuable experience and strategic insight, but this can trigger insecurity among peers and supervisors. When placed in junior roles or positions misaligned with their abilities, it creates team tension. Their leadership potential may be seen as a threat, especially if they are consulted on projects others believe they should lead. This insecurity can lead to efforts to restrict their influence, often through micromanagement or exclusion, to “keep them in their place.”

This mirrors Julius Caesar’s experience. His military and political success outpaced his peers, fueling jealousy and resentment. Like overqualified employees who challenge workplace hierarchies, Caesar’s brilliance disrupted Rome’s power structures. The Senate, feeling threatened, sought to undermine and exclude him, ultimately conspiring against him.

Overqualified employees, like Caesar, can unintentionally challenge authority simply by demonstrating competence. This provokes defensive behavior as leaders or peers assert dominance. In Caesar’s case, his rising power became intolerable to the Senate, fearing they would lose status. In modern workplaces, this manifests as exclusion, scapegoating, or micromanagement, driven by fear of displacement. Similarly, jealousy can lead to sabotage or downplaying achievements—just as the Senate tried to suppress Caesar’s influence.

Cultural fit plays a key role. Overqualified employees from more dynamic or innovative backgrounds may not align with organizational culture, leading others to view them as outsiders or threats. Caesar faced similar resistance, as his forward-thinking reforms alienated the Roman elite who preferred the status quo.

Fear of job displacement often worsens tensions, as colleagues and supervisors worry that the overqualified employee might take their position. This fear leads to competitive or malicious behavior—mirroring the Senate’s conspiracy against Caesar, driven by fear of his growing influence.

Overqualified employees also face unfairly high expectations. They may be given excessive workloads or held to higher standards, becoming scapegoats when things go wrong. Similarly, Caesar’s success threatened the Senate, leading them to impose impossible standards before betraying him.

Top-Heavy Hierarchies

Rigid hierarchies and excessive management layers create power imbalances that slow decision-making, stifle innovation, and erode morale. In such environments, a few individuals make autocratic decisions, ignoring the input of others. This breeds resentment and disengagement, as self-motivated employees often become targets for bullying, scapegoated for disruptions, or labeled threats to the status quo.

The Roman Senate’s resistance to change, weighed down by elites, mirrors the flaws of top-heavy hierarchies. Caesar’s proactive leadership challenged this system, provoking resistance from entrenched powers. Instead of embracing change, the Senate saw Caesar as a threat. Like modern organizations, they formed tight-knit factions to protect their power, marginalizing and undermining those outside their circle.

With power concentrated at the top, the Senate's decisions became disconnected from the people’s needs. They prioritized control over addressing Rome’s issues, much like how modern hierarchies blur accountability and shield those in power from responsibility. In Caesar’s time, this led to political maneuvering and, ultimately, his assassination—a result of the Senate's failure to handle dissent and innovation constructively.

To prevent these toxic dynamics, modern organizations must foster autonomy and encourage input from all levels. Empowering employees to contribute without fear encourages innovation and creates a healthier, more inclusive culture. Failing to decentralize power risks fostering resentment, much like the Senate's refusal to relinquish control led to its downfall and the rise of the Roman Empire.

Lack of Accountability

In toxic cultures, problematic behaviors often go unchallenged due to a lack of accountability for bullying or poor leadership. This absence of consequences allows those with bad intentions to continue their behavior unchecked. Dysfunctional subordinates blame their managers. Dysfunctional managers blame their supervisors. Supervisors blame the leadership team, who in turn blame the company owners. The owners shift blame to the board or difficult clients. This cycle perpetuates, with no one demonstrating the maturity or self-awareness to take responsibility for their actions. In such environments, bullying thrives.

Fear Based and Retaliatory Cultures

In fear-based and retaliatory cultures, the fear of speaking out against toxic behaviors like bullying allows those behaviors to thrive. HR departments often play a critical role in either enabling or preventing workplace bullying, but in these environments, even a well-meaning HR team can feel powerless to influence change. Fear of retaliation from higher-ups or peers leads employees to stay silent, creating an environment where bullies can control others without consequence.

In some organizations, HR departments may focus more on protecting the company’s interests than safeguarding employee well-being. When whistleblowers are not protected, employees who witness or experience bullying may choose to remain silent, fearing retaliation such as isolation, demotion, or even termination. This creates a culture where bullies thrive, manipulating the system to avoid accountability and using fear to maintain their power.

Fear-based cultures in modern workplaces mirror the dynamics of ancient Rome, where fear of losing power drove the Senate to conspire against Caesar in secret. Much like modern whistleblowers who face retaliation for speaking up, those in the conspirators' circle who might have opposed the assassination plot stayed silent, afraid of retribution from their peers. This culture of fear and retaliation not only silenced dissent but also allowed toxic behaviors like manipulation and betrayal to go unchecked, ultimately leading to Caesar’s assassination.

In fear-based cultures, bullies often thrive because they understand how to exploit the power dynamics, using fear to keep colleagues in line and silence any opposition. Without accountability from leadership or HR, this toxic cycle continues, creating deeply entrenched bullying behaviors. Just as the fear-driven actions of the Senate led to Caesar’s downfall, fear-based cultures in organizations can lead to long-term harm, both to individuals and the company.

Unresolved Conflicts

When conflicts are left unresolved, they can simmer beneath the surface, eventually boiling over into grudges or even retaliation. This was exactly what happened with Caesar. Senators who had personal grievances, policy disagreements, or felt slighted in some way allowed those issues to fester. Over time, these unresolved tensions fueled the conspiracy against him, leading to a tragic and violent end. In the workplace, it’s much the same. If conflicts aren't addressed early and effectively, they can escalate into bigger problems. Nipping issues in the bud through open communication and timely intervention can prevent them from spiraling out of control.

One important point to note—and something HR departments, inexperienced managers, and individuals placed in leadership roles often miss—is the distinction between running an HR investigation and resolving a conflict. The former is rooted in managerial thinking, focused on rules and procedures. The latter reflects leadership thinking, which prioritizes understanding, resolution, and long-term growth. 

When people in positions of power fail to understand the distinction between simply following procedures (managerial thinking) and actually resolving conflicts (leadership thinking), they can often make poor decisions. These bad decisions stem from addressing surface-level issues rather than understanding the underlying dynamics and working toward meaningful resolutions. It’s especially true in situations that require empathy, active listening, and long-term thinking—qualities that are crucial for strong, effective leadership.

High Competition

In highly competitive settings, it’s easy for employees to start viewing each other as rivals, especially when they see someone as a threat to their own success. This can quickly lead to bullying, as people may try to undermine and control those they perceive as competition. Like modern workplaces, the Roman Senate was driven by competition. Caesar’s growing influence provoked jealousy, leading his peers to underhanded tactics to protect their power.

This same dynamic plays out in modern industries, especially when performance is closely tied to individual or team success. In environments where bonuses, promotions, and recognition are awarded to the top performers, competition can become toxic. It’s even worse in businesses with limited resources—tight budgets, short timelines, or small teams—where employees feel they’re fighting for what they need to succeed.

Some organizations, particularly in high-stakes industries like investment banking, law, advertising or tech startups, may tolerate aggressive or highly competitive cultures. In these environments, bullying might be overlooked or even normalized, especially if it’s seen as "pushing employees to excel." While this might yield short-term gains, it can lead to long-term damage to morale and sustainability. 

Industries driven by client deadlines or creative innovation are especially vulnerable to unhealthy competition. When employees are pressured to outperform their colleagues to secure future assignments or promotions, they may resort to unfair tactics. In creative fields, where ideas and talent are highly prized, cutthroat behaviors may also emerge. Employees may attempt to push others out of the spotlight, taking credit for others' ideas and innovations or positioning themselves as key players. We see a striking example of this in Brutus, the one Senator many believed acted out of idealism in assassinating Caesar. After Caesar's death, Brutus—supposedly against autocratic rule—had his likeness stamped on Roman coins, even marking the date of Caesar’s assassination on them. His actions revealed hypocrisy, arrogance, and insecurity, contradicting his portrayal as a liberator and suggesting that his participation in Caesar's assassination was driven more by personal ambition than for the good of Rome.

Just like in Caesar’s time, where the Senate feared his growing influence and sought to eliminate him as a rival, modern workplace dynamics can spiral into unhealthy competition. It’s up to organizations to foster healthy competition, promoting collaboration over rivalry, to keep these toxic behaviors in check.

Discrimination

Bullying becomes more harmful when rooted in discrimination—whether based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or social class. A 2016 EEOC study found that 35% of racial harassment charges included bullying, while a 2019 CIPD study showed women and LGBTQ+ employees disproportionately affected. Research from Catalyst Inc. further reveals that 61% of the 3,000+ employees surveyed across Australia, Brazil, Canada, the UK, and the US reported being “on guard” for potential bias within their work teams, meaning they are constantly vigilant for discriminatory or prejudiced behavior directed at them or others. 

This bullying intensifies when marginalized individuals display independence, proactiveness or outshine their peers. Social Dominance Theory suggests that those in power maintain dominance by subordinating perceived threats, especially when these individuals exhibit traits that disrupt the hierarchy. Similarly, System Justification Theory explains how inequalities are rationalized, leading to bullying behaviors aimed at preserving the existing order. A member from a marginalized community that is proactive or innovative may be seen by a person with discriminatory views as “not staying in their place” and may be subjected to bullying.

Caesar’s rise from a diminished-status family rattled the Roman elite, much like how modern disruptors challenge traditional workplace power structures. His refusal to follow certain traditions, like rejecting the crown offered by Mark Antony, was seen as arrogance and provoked the same exclusionary tactics many minorities face today: scapegoating and undermining authority.

This dynamic persists in workplaces where marginalized employees, who show strength or excel, are often held to higher standards and penalized more easily. This mirrors the Roman Senate’s attempts to contain Caesar’s growing influence.

Discriminatory biases often go unspoken, making them harder to address in corporate settings. When individuals with these biases hold leadership or gatekeeping roles, they influence hiring, promotions, and team dynamics, perpetuating toxic power imbalances where bullying thrives.

To combat this, organizations must go beyond superficial diversity efforts. True inclusivity requires policies that promote equality and assess employees based on merit, rather than identity or conformity to the dominant group. In Part 3b, we will explore the concept of intersectionality, examining how overlapping identities further complicate workplace dynamics and can exacerbate the experience of bullying for marginalized individuals.

Tribalism

When in-groups or cliques form within a team or an organization, it can lead to exclusion and bullying. Tribalism is closely tied to workplace mobbing, which we covered in part 2a of this series. Tribalism thrives in organizations and teams that have weak leadership, and it's basically cliquey behavior. Caesar’s assassination exemplifies tribalism, as a faction within the Senate banded together to isolate and undermine him—justifying their actions as protecting the Republic, though it was about maintaining their power.

In modern workplaces, this same group mentality can surface, leading to the exclusion of those who don’t "fit in" with the dominant group. This often happens in environments where belonging to the right social group matters more than talent or holistic experience. Leaders need to actively promote inclusivity and discourage the formation of cliques. When a workplace fosters open communication and mutual respect, everyone can contribute without feeling like they’re on the outside looking in. This not only creates a healthier work environment but also prevents the negative dynamics that tribalism can bring.

Burnout & Overwork

Though Caesar may not have faced burnout, the pressure he placed on the Senate likely fueled resentment, contributing to the conspiracy against him. Similarly, in modern workplaces, burnout can breed hostility, where overworked employees, feeling unsupported, may lash out at others—creating a cycle of stress and bullying.

Mental Health & Personality Disorders

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) reports that nearly one in five U.S. adults (about 23%) experiences a mental illness in a given year, affecting approximately 59 million people annually. Given this prevalence, it’s possible that either you, your coworkers, clients, partners or superiors may be dealing with a mental illness. A significant portion of the workforce faces mental health challenges or personality disorders, which can manifest in various ways at work. Unfortunately, job interviews often focus on skills and experience rather than assessing mental health or character. References may provide insights into past behavior but often fail to reveal deeper issues, such as unresolved mental health concerns or personality disorders that contribute to toxic behaviors.

Personality disorders like narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (the Dark Triad) are strongly linked to bullying. Individuals with these traits often seek to dominate or control others to maintain power, using underhanded tactics to undermine them. Similarly, unmanaged mental health conditions such as anxiety or depression can fuel insecurity, leading to reactive behaviors like gossip, passive-aggressiveness, or exclusion.

For example, anxiety can drive defensive behaviors as people try to maintain control, while depression may lead to disengagement and a negative atmosphere. Unfortunately, mental health struggles are often unspoken in the workplace, creating an environment where these issues fester and contribute to bullying dynamics.

Organizations must recognize that mental health and personality disorders can escalate into organizational problems when they result in harmful behaviors. Providing mental health support, fostering psychological safety, and training leaders in emotional intelligence are key to preventing these issues from escalating into bullying. While Caesar’s story doesn’t directly focus on mental health—though he is believed to have struggled with epilepsy or strokes—the manipulation, betrayal, and power-seeking behaviors of his adversaries reflect traits associated with personality disorders, such as those in the Dark Triad. Leaders, both then and now, must address these toxic behaviors before they harm the workplace.

In Part 3a, we explored the structural and cultural causes of workplace bullying, from poorly defined roles and overqualification to fear-based cultures and top-heavy hierarchies. In Part 3b, we will dive deeper into the challenges of intersectionality and the subjectivity of likability, examining how these factors shape bullying dynamics and disproportionately affect marginalized individuals in the workplace.

Summary of Key Points

• Unclear roles, overqualification, and ineffective leadership create environments where confusion and insecurity fuel bullying. Without clear direction or empowered leaders, employees are more likely to engage in harmful behaviors.
• Fear-based, retaliatory cultures, and unresolved conflicts allow bullying to thrive, as individuals hesitate to speak up or confront issues for fear of backlash, leading to a toxic work environment.
• High competition, discrimination, and tribalism exacerbate workplace tensions, targeting those who challenge the status quo or stand out due to their skills, background, or difference.
• Burnout, mental health issues, and lack of accountability deepen toxic behaviors, with unchecked power dynamics and emotional strain leading to hostility and further alienation.

Reflection: As you reflect on these insights, consider these questions:

• How does your workplace define roles and responsibilities, and have you noticed instances where ambiguity has led to conflict or power struggles?
• Have you witnessed overqualified colleagues being treated differently or marginalized due to insecurity or fear of displacement by peers or supervisors? What impact did this have on the team dynamic?
• How does fear of retaliation shape the culture in your organization? Are there systems in place that support speaking out against toxic behavior, or does fear allow bullying to persist?
• What systems could be implemented in your workplace to ensure accountability, particularly for leaders, when dealing with bullying or toxic behaviors?
• Do you have any additional thoughts on this article?

Workplace bullying is a sensitive topic, but by sharing ideas and strategies, we can work toward healthier, more inclusive environments. Please feel free to share your thoughts, focusing on solutions and best practices. Your insights could help others navigate similar challenges and contribute to a broader understanding of how to build healthier workplaces.