Victimisation – five risk areas in the work environment

It rarely begins with a formal complaint of victimisation. Instead, it may involve irritation that is never resolved, a comment that feels slightly too cutting, or a manager who hesitates because the situation feels uncomfortable to address. Many workplaces assume that victimisation is about extreme behaviour, but according to organisational consultant and psychologist Ulrika Funkeson, who specialises in this area, it often looks quite different.

“It is rarely a single incident that explains everything. More often, we see a combination of several risk factors, where people are already under pressure, there is a high degree of uncertainty, or the tone of conversations has gradually deteriorated over time,” she says.

Five risk areas that can lead to conflicts

Ulrika is part of Falck’s team that works with investigations into victimisation. In their work, she and her colleagues have identified five areas that they see recurring when they examine aspects of the work environment that have contributed to a situation in connection with a report of victimisation.

An uncivil climate and tone

Small but recurring expressions of incivility, such as brief and cold responses, sighs, ironic comments or questioning someone’s competence, can quickly have a negative impact on the work environment. When this kind of behaviour becomes normalised and no one calls it out, the step to more serious mistreatment becomes shorter.

A tone that feels natural to some may at the same time create a sense of exclusion for others, especially new employees. These are also the kinds of environments where boundaries can easily be pushed little by little, which means they can become high-risk environments for serious behaviour.

Structural organisational risk factors

Time pressure, heavy workloads, unclear roles and recurring changes increase the risk of conflicts and harmful behaviour. When demands and resources do not align, irritation increases, patience decreases and the interaction between colleagues deteriorates. Deficiencies in different structural organisational factors can therefore become fertile ground for experiences of victimisation.

Ulrika describes it as a classic high-risk environment: when people are under pressure for a long period of time, they become more abrupt in their tone, less attentive and more inclined to interpret each other negatively.

“Time pressure in itself does not create victimisation, but it increases vulnerability. When the workload is high and roles are unclear, it becomes easier to misunderstand each other and harder to be generous in one’s interpretations,” she says.

A weak communication culture

In work environments where people avoid speaking directly to one another, or where issues are instead channelled through the manager and become accusations rather than dialogue, the risk of misunderstandings and deadlock increases. When interpretations are not clarified, frustration, rumours and feelings of not being listened to can easily grow.

A strong communication culture means having the courage to speak up, and being good at giving feedback and follow-up. It also means daring to approach one another and apologise when needed. But it also requires a willingness to listen to one another. If employees feel there is no point in raising problems directly, communication risks taking indirect routes until it eventually becomes unclear, charged or anonymous.

Inadequate conflict management

Many cases concerning victimisation actually begin with conflicts that were not identified and addressed in time. When the parties become stuck in defensiveness and resistance to dialogue, the risk of escalation increases. Escalated conflicts can have consequences for the entire group. If managers wait too long to act, it becomes harder to stop the development. Here, Ulrika sees a clear pitfall: passivity.

“Many conflicts become serious because they are not dealt with while they are still manageable. The longer you wait, the more time emotions, interpretations and suspicion have to build up,” she says.

This is where the organisation needs robust structures that identify issues early and provide practical support for handling the conflict. Unmanaged or unresolved conflicts are a common cause of perceived victimisation.

Careless management practices

Corrective conversations, performance follow-up and clear expectations are necessary parts of leadership, but they must be carried out with care and clarity. If the manager becomes unclear, harsh or allows their own frustration to take over, the situation may be experienced as victimising, even when the action itself is factually justified. Respectful and systematic leadership reduces the risk of management itself becoming a source of perceived mistreatment. When a manager needs to draw a line, set expectations or follow up on recurring shortcomings, tone, timing and preparation become crucial.

Preventing risks in everyday work

So where should you start if you want to work proactively to prevent conflicts and victimisation? Review your organisation and consider whether any of these areas stand out, whether one of them hits a little closer to home, and start there.

“I see these areas as ongoing processes that we need to maintain and keep adjusting. It is never really finished.”

When a work group gets support in speaking directly to one another, giving feedback in time, clearing up misunderstandings and working with clear ground rules, the risk that irritation will grow into mistrust and conflict is reduced.