Persistent reports of harassment or bullying
Repeated themes of intimidation, humiliation, exclusion, and unreasonable demands in grievances, surveys, or exit interviews, even if individual incidents are “managed” or minimised.
Significant gaps between informal reports (through HR, managers, EAP) and formal complaints, suggesting fear of speaking up or low trust in processes.
Normalisation of unreasonable demands
A culture that glorifies overwork, expects workers to be “always on,” or treats long hours and constant availability as proof of commitment.
Regularly unrealistic workloads, chronic understaffing, and pressure to “do whatever it takes” with little regard for health, safety or recovery time.
Tolerance of disrespectful behaviour
Abusive or offensive language, public belittling, yelling, and sarcasm by leaders or “star performers” that is rationalised as “just their style” or necessary to get results.
Observed mistreatment of others (e.g. exclusion, ridicule, shouting) that goes unchallenged by peers and managers, signalling that speaking up is risky.
Inequity and vulnerability of certain groups
Data showing higher bullying reports or stress‑related claims among particular demographic or cultural groups, such as culturally diverse workers or people in protected attributes.
Patterns where women, younger employees, or people with limited social support are more exposed to undermining, exclusion, or unreasonable criticism.
These signals indicate not just isolated misconduct but a broader culture where psychosocial safety is not genuinely prioritised.
Organisational indicators boards should monitor
Australian regulators and WHS guidance emphasise that bullying is a psychosocial hazard that must be managed like any other health and safety risk. For governance bodies, this translates into specific indicators to track:
Claims, complaints and investigation metrics
Volume and trend of bullying, harassment and psychosocial injury claims (e.g. workers’ compensation data, Fair Work Commission matters).
Time taken to triage and investigate complaints, proportion of substantiated cases, and recurrence of issues in the same teams or under the same leaders.
Workforce climate and culture data
Regular survey results on psychological safety, respect, inclusion, and confidence in reporting processes, including “speak up” indices.
Indicators of toxic culture such as low trust in leadership, perceived unfairness, fear of retaliation, or the view that “nothing changes” when concerns are raised.
Turnover, absenteeism and performance indicators
High or unexplained turnover, especially among high performers and particular business units, alongside increased absenteeism and stress‑related leave.
Drops in productivity, collaboration, or quality in pockets of the organisation that also attract complaints or informal concerns about behaviour.
Leadership behaviour and governance practices
Evidence of leaders modelling respectful behaviour, calling out inappropriate conduct, and being held to account for how results are achieved, not just what is achieved.
Integration of psychosocial risks and bullying into risk registers, board dashboards, and WHS reporting, not left as a narrow HR or “people problem”.
These indicators help boards see bullying as a systemic risk rather than a string of isolated cases.
Key cultural indicators for boards
Governance responsibilities and oversight focus
Australian guidance (Safe Work Australia, Comcare and state regulators) makes clear that officers have due diligence obligations for psychosocial health, including bullying. For boards and governing councils, this means:
Treating bullying as a WHS and governance issue
Ensuring bullying is explicitly treated as a psychosocial hazard within the WHS framework and appears in the enterprise risk register where material.
Seeking assurance that controls are in place: clear policies, training, reporting channels, fair investigations, and support for affected workers.
Requiring meaningful reporting
Requesting regular, de‑identified reporting on psychosocial risks, including complaint patterns, resolution times, EAP usage trends, and culture survey outcomes.
Asking for analysis of hotspots by function, site, leader, demographic group, and employment type (e.g. contractors, casuals) to detect systemic issues.
Challenging “good news only” narratives
Probing when formal complaint numbers are very low but external data or exit interviews suggest issues, which may indicate under‑reporting.
Questioning whether disciplinary action, promotion and reward decisions are consistent with stated values about respect, inclusion and safety.
When governance bodies consistently ask for this information and act on it, they send a strong signal that bullying is incompatible with the organisation’s culture and strategy.
Practical questions for directors and boards
For an Australian governance audience, a useful way to identify indicators is to embed structured questions into board and committee agendas. Examples include:
What are our current psychosocial risk metrics, and where does bullying sit within them?
Where are the hotspots by geography, business unit, leader or demographic group, and what is being done about them?
How do staff rate their ability to speak up about poor behaviour without fear, and how has that changed over time?
How do we ensure leaders are selected, developed and rewarded for creating psychologically safe environments, not just delivering short‑term results?
Using questions like these helps governance bodies move from reactive case‑by‑case responses to proactive cultural stewardship.
