Alea Iacta Est: Navigating the Forms of Workplace Bullying

This article was originally published on hickamsdictum.com

Alea Iacta Est," meaning "The die is cast," was famously declared by Julius Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon, signaling a point of no return. In this context, it symbolizes how certain actions and decisions in the workplace, much like in Caesar's story, can set irreversible events in motion, particularly when it comes to bullying behaviors.

Introduction

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at Julius Caesar’s rise to power and how insecurities played a big role in his eventual downfall—a story that surprisingly mirrors many of today’s workplace dynamics. We also discussed how high achievers can be vulnerable to bullying, but it’s important to note that workplace bullying affects individuals across various spectrums. Whether someone is perceived as vulnerable, different, or whether power dynamics and personal grudges come into play, bullying can impact employees from all walks of life.

It's also crucial to recognize that bullies, like their targets, can come from any background—race, age, gender, class, religious or political affiliation. While certain factors may increase the likelihood of someone becoming a bully or a target, each case is unique, and individuals should be treated accordingly.

In this second part of the series (Part 2a), we’ll dive deeper into the different tactics of workplace bullying, using Caesar’s story to illustrate how these behaviors can escalate—from subtle and indirect actions to more overt and aggressive ones. By understanding how these behaviors develop, we can better identify early warning signs and address toxic dynamics before they escalate further.

Tactics of Workplace Bullying Through the Lens of Julius Caesar

Gossiping

Gossiping is a sneaky form of bullying that can cause significant damage without the target realizing it. In Caesar’s case, secret conversations and rumors painted him as a tyrant, chipping away at his reputation and isolating him from key decisions. This gossip created a cloud of distrust, rallying more people against him and making his assassination seem necessary to save the Republic.

In modern workplaces, gossip similarly undermines reputations, erodes team cohesion, and damages trust. For instance, a manager might betray an employee’s confidence by sharing their personal struggles with higher-ups, or coworkers might gossip negatively about their boss or team members to gain favor. This toxic behavior not only harms individuals but also creates an atmosphere of suspicion and insecurity, disrupting collaboration and morale.

Exclusion and Ostracism

Exclusion is one of the most childish, yet surprisingly common, forms of bullying in the workplace. Think about the 'mean girls' or 'mean boys' in school who would leave someone out of their group to send a message that they don’t belong. It’s shocking, but this kind of behavior doesn't always stop after grade school. You’d be surprised how many grown adults—some of them managing millions of dollars in business—still engage in this dysfunctional behavior.

In Caesar’s case, the conspirators deliberately excluded him from important discussions and decisions about the future of Rome. By cutting him out of these critical conversations, they made him an easy target for their plotting. This exclusion didn’t just weaken Caesar’s influence; it left him vulnerable. Without access to key information and cut off from potential allies, his position became even more precarious, paving the way for his eventual downfall.

Undermining

Undermining someone at work can manifest in various ways, but it typically involves not respecting boundaries and gradually eroding a person’s influence or authority. It might involve questioning a colleague’s decisions in front of others to make them seem less credible, constantly criticizing their ideas to paint them as less competent, or even going behind their back to take over their projects. In Caesar’s case, the conspirators were masters of this tactic. They downplayed his achievements, ignoring the fact that Rome had expanded and thrived under his leadership. Caesar’s reforms fundamentally reshaped Roman life, with some innovations still in use today. Yet, the Senate refused to acknowledge his contributions. Instead, they framed his reforms and military victories as self-serving, dismissing the real benefits they brought to Rome. In addition to undermining his titles and honors, the Senate resisted many of his reforms. By chipping away at his credibility, they made it easier to convince others to turn against him. Undermining Caesar’s authority was a crucial tactic in the conspiracy, as it gradually pushed him out of the political processes he once dominated.

Gaslighting?

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation aimed at making someone doubt their reality. It’s a tactic often used to undermine confidence and create a distorted narrative. In Caesar’s case, his refusal of the crown was twisted into evidence of ambition, making him appear tyrannical. This manipulation eroded trust and contributed to his isolation and eventual downfall.

In modern workplaces, gaslighting can occur when managers or colleagues intentionally distort facts or minimize someone’s achievements to make them question their capabilities. For example, a manager might promise a promotion to an employee and then deny ever making the offer, saying, “You must have misunderstood.” Or they might shift the blame for a failed project, despite the employee following every instruction. This manipulation creates confusion and self-doubt, leaving the target questioning their own competence and reality.

Another example is when a colleague or manager attempts to make someone question their performance without any factual basis. For instance, an employee gives a presentation to a client, with the client expressing no issues during the meeting. However, after the presentation, the manager—who had been asked to listen in—publicly claims on a group call that they believe the client didn’t understand what was said. When the employee asks for specifics, the manager cannot provide any concrete feedback. This public questioning of the employee’s work, without evidence, creates doubt not just in the target’s mind but also in the minds of others present, thereby isolating the employee and undermining their confidence.

The key difference between constructive criticism and gaslighting lies in intent—while constructive criticism aims to help someone improve, gaslighting seeks to control and destabilize. Recognizing this distinction helps prevent falling victim to this subtle form of bullying.

Micromanaging

Micromanaging is a clear sign of a toxic work environment. It stifles creativity, autonomy, and confidence, eroding the initiative and decision-making abilities of even the most capable employees. Over time, this leads to frustration, disengagement, and reduced productivity. Micromanagement not only limits potential but also lowers morale, causing talented individuals to feel undervalued.

In Caesar’s case, the Senate, threatened by his authority, sought to limit his power by restricting his movements, reducing his influence, and demanding he disband his army. Despite these efforts, Caesar acted independently, crossing the Rubicon in defiance of the Senate, further escalating tensions and solidifying the conspirators’ resolve to take drastic action against him.

Favoritism and Nepotism

Favoritism can really stir up trouble in any workplace, and Caesar wasn’t immune to this. His clear preference for certain allies, like Mark Antony, caused resentment among other leaders. By giving Antony so much power and influence, Caesar unintentionally fueled divisions within the Senate. This favoritism pushed away potential allies and added to the internal tensions that eventually led to his assassination. The fact that Caesar seemed to be concentrating power in a small inner circle only made the Senate more suspicious and fearful, speeding up their plans to take him down. When certain individuals or groups are favored based on personal connections rather than merit, it creates divisions and feelings of unfairness, making the work environment more competitive and toxic. This can also lead to bullying of those who aren’t in the “in-group.” Given the ever-present risk of favoritism and nepotism, it’s essential for workplaces to have clear policies in place for managing relationships involving family or close friends to ensure fairness and transparency.

Sabotage

Sabotage in the workplace can show up in many different ways, especially in competitive environments. It often involves withholding information or resources, creating roadblocks like excessive workloads or impossible deadlines, tampering with projects and taking credit for others' work. One hallmark of workplace saboteurs is their tendency to take credit for other people’s work while controlling the flow of communication.

Saboteurs may control key meetings, purposely leaving off relevant parties—especially anyone they view as a threat. By doing so, they limit their colleagues' ability to contribute, influence decisions, or gain visibility and recognition for their efforts. They may even paint their perceived competition in a negative light while quietly taking control of key projects. In some cases, they may subtly steer projects toward failure, allowing them to shift the blame onto others while consolidating power. They are often very insecure and are quick to form relationships with those in positions of power, and after gaining their trust, they form their hit lists, encouraging their powerful allies (who may be saboteurs as well) to eliminate anyone they see as a threat.

Saboteurs often target individuals who stand up for integrity and fairness, as these qualities can expose unethical practices or favoritism. They also often target high performers, as high performers often focus on their work rather than office politics, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation. High performers challenge mediocrity and expose inefficiencies, making them a threat to saboteurs who rely on keeping things unchanged.

Those with Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism) may even manipulate situations to damage their target's reputation while elevating their own standing.

Workplace saboteurs often play a significant role in initiating workplace mobs. Their behavior is typically rooted in self-serving motives and a desire to destabilize others to secure their own position or mask their inadequacies.

In Caesar’s case, his enemies used similar tactics to make governing difficult, spreading rumors and blocking his efforts to maintain control. This constant sabotage weakened his leadership, contributing to the civil war that followed his death and ultimately destroyed the Roman Republic.

Scapegoating

Scapegoating is the act of blaming one individual for broader issues, even when they’re not responsible, as a way to deflect accountability. The conspirators used Caesar as a scapegoat for the Republic’s problems, painting his ambition as the root cause of Rome’s instability. By doing so, they justified their plot to assassinate him, while ignoring the deeper issues within the Senate.

In modern workplaces, scapegoating typically involves singling out an individual for failures or problems within a team or organization. By projecting the blame onto one person, the group avoids addressing the root causes, leaving the target defenseless against the collective narrative.

Mobbing

Mobbing, or group bullying, occurs when colleagues band together to isolate, undermine, and ultimately overpower a target. In Caesar’s case, the conspirators exemplified this form of bullying. What started as isolated acts of gossip and exclusion grew into a collective effort, with the conspirators uniting to spread rumors, exclude Caesar from key discussions and decisions, and eventually plot his assassination. This gang-like mentality allowed each conspirator to hide behind the collective, avoiding personal accountability while contributing to the larger plot. Mobbing was central to Caesar’s downfall, as it magnified the conspirators' power, ensuring that no individual had to face Caesar directly.

Workplace mobs can consist of individuals from all levels of an organization. Junior staff, managers, HR, clients and even executives can be part of a mob, highlighting that bullying behaviors can span across hierarchies. A workplace mob can even have members across companies. This makes mobbing particularly insidious, as it allows different actors with varying motivations and influence levels to unite for a common goal—whether that’s to remove a perceived threat, shift power dynamics, or protect their own standing.

While mobbing typically involves peer-level colleagues, it can also manifest as bottom-up bullying, where subordinates or employees undermine a leader or someone in a higher position. Subordinates may band together to discredit their supervisor, sometimes out of personal grudges or a desire to challenge authority. This form of bullying can be especially damaging because leadership may not expect such behavior from junior employees, allowing it to go unnoticed and grow unchecked.

In modern workplaces, mobbing can look like a group of coworkers excluding someone from meetings and discussions, gossiping behind their back, or collectively undermining their work. Mobbing can be bolstered by the Bystander Effect, where individuals feel less personal responsibility when part of a group, making it easier to contribute to or ignore harmful behaviors. The goal is often to strip the individual of their influence and humiliate them, as the group perceives them as a threat.

The involvement of individuals across different ranks—and sometimes even across companies, similar to the makeup of the mob that assassinated Caesar—adds a unique complexity to mobbing. This multi-level collaboration allows people with varied motivations to rally around a shared objective, whether that’s removing a perceived threat, shifting power dynamics, or protecting personal interests. By legitimizing exclusionary behavior, mobbing fosters an environment where toxicity becomes embedded within the organization’s culture. The collective nature of mobbing not only intensifies its impact but also makes it more challenging to address compared to isolated incidents of bullying.

The Heart of Workplace Mobs - Workplace Saboteurs

At the core of workplace mobs lies the workplace saboteur—an individual driven by insecurity, envy, or even personality disorders. Often charming and skilled at forming relationships with decision-makers and influencers, saboteurs thrive on chaos and manipulation, using mobbing as a strategic tool to achieve their goals.

Saboteurs feel threatened by high-performing individuals who expose inefficiencies, incompetence, or unethical behavior. Preemptively, they organize mobs to silence or discredit their target, diverting attention away from their own shortcomings or mistakes. Envious of the target’s success, work ethic, or recognition, they use mobbing to neutralize or undermine them.

One of the saboteur's key tactics is spreading subtle misinformation, rumors, or negative perceptions about the target. This creates a foundation of mistrust and resentment that can easily escalate into mob behavior. By twisting facts, playing the victim, or framing the target as a problem or someone who "doesn’t fit in," saboteurs manipulate colleagues and pave the way for others to join the mob.

Saboteurs often align with influential colleagues or leaders, persuading them to endorse or participate in their campaign against the target. This legitimizes their behavior and makes it easier to recruit others. They exploit existing tensions or insecurities within the group, rallying support against high achievers, principled individuals, or those perceived as isolated.

Once the saboteur secures initial backing, others frequently join the mob out of fear, conformity, or a misguided belief in the saboteur’s narrative. This group dynamic obscures the saboteur's true motives, diffusing responsibility and making individual accountability harder to pinpoint. Saboteurs often target those who stand for integrity and fairness, as these qualities threaten to expose unethical practices or favoritism.

By fostering distrust and weaponizing groupthink, saboteurs can destabilize high performers and undermine workplace integrity, all while hiding behind the chaos they create.

In the story of Julius Caesar, Cassius exemplifies the saboteur archetype. Feeling threatened by Caesar’s growing power and envious of his success, Cassius manipulates Brutus and others to form a mob against Caesar. He frames Caesar as a tyrant-in-the-making, spreading fears about his ambition while masking his own insecurities and personal vendetta behind the guise of protecting Rome. Like a modern workplace saboteur, Cassius excels at recruiting allies, twisting facts, and playing the victim to legitimize his campaign. His ability to exploit group dynamics allows him to orchestrate Caesar’s assassination while deflecting blame and accountability from himself. Cassius’s actions highlight how saboteurs use manipulation and mobbing to undermine high performers and achieve their own ends, often at great cost to the organization—or, in this case, Rome.

Humiliation

Workplace humiliation is the 'granddaddy' of all bullying types. It's one of the most common ways insecure people try to flex their power and assert dominance over others. Some examples of workplace humiliation might sound familiar: criticizing someone’s work or ideas in front of others to make them feel embarrassed, using offensive or insulting language to tear someone down, sending aggressive emails, assigning degrading or menial tasks, or leaving a colleague out of important meetings or social events to make them feel marginalized. Even publicly questioning someone’s authority or making fun of their appearance can fall under this category.

The goal of workplace humiliation is pretty clear—it’s about stripping away someone’s confidence and self-esteem, which can have devastating effects on their well-being. And while it’s shocking to think that adults behave this way in professional settings, people who use humiliation are often driven by insecurity or the desire to assert control.

Caesar’s assassination wasn’t just a political move—it was an act of public humiliation. Stabbed 23 times, (including allegedly stabbed in the penis), Caesar’s termination was a calculated effort to degrade him in the most brutal way possible. The brutality of his execution is an indicator of how much the conspirators hated him and how much he intimidated them. The conspirators wanted to send a message, asserting their dominance and shaming him, not just in front of the Senate but in the eyes of all of Rome. The humiliation didn’t stop there—it had far-reaching consequences, sparking a civil war and leading to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Power Dynamics and Strategies for Dealing with Misaligned Leaders

The types of bullying we’ve been talking about often stem from complex power dynamics, where individuals or groups use manipulation, exclusion, and other tactics to keep control or assert dominance. Understanding these dynamics is key for anyone trying to navigate a tough workplace, especially when you’re dealing with colleagues, subordinates, or leaders who aren’t on the same page. Employees who are isolated or intentionally left out of key discussions by bullies may find their performance undervalued, not because they aren't contributing but because they lack the social backing of the dominant group (Tafjel, Turner 1979).

What’s interesting—and a little unsettling—is that people who engage in these behaviors usually don’t see themselves as ‘bad’ or harmful. They might convince themselves that their actions are necessary or just part of doing business, often driven by a different set of values than those who feel targeted. This misalignment in values makes it tricky to address these behaviors directly—sometimes, trying to call them out can backfire, making you the target instead of creating positive change.

The truth is, not everyone responds the same way to being challenged. Some people appreciate thoughtful feedback or reasoned arguments, but others see any pushback as a threat to their status or control. In those cases, it’s often smarter to disengage strategically rather than go head-to-head. Knowing when to step back and avoid becoming collateral damage in someone else’s power play is an important survival skill in a toxic work environment.

Ultimately, it’s about reading the room, understanding what’s driving certain behaviors, and picking your battles wisely. By recognizing the power dynamics and values at play, you can protect yourself and avoid getting caught up in someone else’s agenda.

Conclusion

In exploring these various forms of workplace bullying, from gossiping and exclusion to gaslighting and undermining, it becomes clear how subtle behaviors can quickly escalate into toxic dynamics that harm both individuals and teams. Whether through micromanaging or overt favoritism, bullying tactics are often rooted in insecurity and a desire for control, with devastating consequences for the work environment.

As with Julius Caesar, small fractures in trust and respect can snowball into larger conflicts that destabilize organizations. By understanding and recognizing these early warning signs, we can begin addressing toxic behaviors before they escalate. In the next section of this series, we’ll delve deeper into the multifaceted nature of workplace bullying and explore how it affects individuals and organizations on a broader scale.

In Part 2B, we will examine how these dynamics are often linked to deeper psychological patterns and organizational culture.

As you reflect on your own experiences:?

• Have you witnessed or experienced any of the bullying behaviors discussed, like gaslighting, mobbing or undermining?
• Have you seen how favoritism or exclusion can drive divisions within teams?
• Does gossiping shape your opinion of other people, or do you get to know them for yourself?
• Have you ever seen a culture of bullying on a team or organization turn around for the better?
• How do you think power dynamics, like those we explored through Caesar’s story, shape your own workplace?
• Are there any additional perspectives related to this article you want to share?

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.