Présentation sans titre (1).jpg




Call For Papers
Understanding and Fighting against




Mobbing is defined as intimidation taking the form of immoral interventions perpetrated initially by a group, then by the leaders of an organization. The goal is to eliminate an individual who could not be otherwise (Seguin, 2016). This process has become, in organizations, an effective means of evacuating even the most brilliant employees (Grebot, 2010). According to Westhues (2002), it is an individual's level of commitment that makes them subject to mobbing: "The worker most vulnerable to mobbing is the one who is personally invested in a formally secure job". Mobbing is a very widespread tool, a management process, which goes against moral and societal values ​​(Giacalone, 1997), having disastrous consequences for the victim (Ertürk, 2013). In his 2010 article, Harper compares the scale of this phenomenon in the workplace to "quiet genocide."

The term mobbing refers to the effects of packs that certain animals use to protect their territory (Lorenz, 2002), as well as to mafia practices (Flores, 2020). It is important to enhance the fact, that mobbing is radically different from harassment, since it relies on the internal systemic mechanisms of the organization which validate the integrity of the process (Seguin, 2017). The legal process against harassment is ineffective in a mobbing situation and is often diverted against the victim himself (Duffy, 2012). Thus, when one examines the procedures employed for mobbing, the principles relating to respect for the presumption of innocence are not applied. Seguin (2018) said that the process of mobbing is a denial of justice: “Mobbing in the workplace is an organizational pathology that follows the dynamics of the Moscow trials: an employee, who is called the target, is first convicted, then the proofs of his“ guilt ”are fabricated. ". It is nevertheless complex to demonstrate the innocence of the victim, since the organization effectively asserts itself as both judge and party. The consequences of mobbing are heavy for the victim who loses his socio-economic and relational benchmarks, all credibility with his peers, justice authorities (Zapf, 2001) and sometimes life (Pompili, 2008).

A meta-analysis by Hershcovis (2007) shows the factors making it possible to predict the emergence of mobbing in an organization. It appears from his study that public organizations, universities (Friedenberg, 2008; Wajngurt, 2014), schools (Gebauer, 2005), hospitals (Tengilimoğlu, 2010) represent the structures most at risk. Note that small private companies often cannot afford such a process, which involves a risk to their reputation and significant financial support. Indeed, the mobbing process causes sick leave, repercussions in terms of productivity, legal costs, etc. According to Giga ( 2008), "The total cost of bullying to organizations in the UK in 2007 can be estimated at around £ 13.75 billion". Indeed, the cost of mobbing is considerable (Hollis, 2015). In addition, acts of mobbing do nothing for the organization, quite the contrary. 

Indeed, its impact also generates a loss in terms of skills (Divincová, 2014). This is what makes mobbing so difficult to understand since it is the managers, in charge of protecting the system, who orchestrate this type of abuse. Knowing that it is the institutions in the public services that are the most affected, it seems urgent to react in order to defeat this immoral, costly process, the dubious purpose of which is based on the personal inclinations of managers (Curio, 1978) with contempt for the common good (Cornoiu, 2013). However, in Canada, the legal texts do not directly protect the victims of these acts. In Korea, mobbers must answer in their own name for the abuses committed (Park, 2013). In other countries, such as, for example, in Germany or Switzerland, laws exist, but seem not really useful (Lippel, 2010) despite the severity of the cases (Suggala, 2020).

The challenge that we propose to take up in this special issue is to try to gather relevant information in order to better understand the process of mobbing, to present testimonies in order to grasp the violence and the complexity of the phenomenon, to propose tools or measurement systems in order to better understand it, to put mobbing into perspective with other situations which have or have not found ways to resolve it and to try, possibly, to consider solutions. So, here are some possible themes as an indication and without limitation:



Final submission date: July 10, 2023


Cornoiu, T. S., & Gyorgy, M. (2013). Mobbing in organizations. Benefits of identifying the phenomenon. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 708-712.

Curio, E., Ernst, U., & Vieth, W. (1978). Cultural transmission of enemy recognition: one function of mobbing. Science, 202(4370), 899-901.

Divincová, A., & Siváková, B. (2014). Mobbing at the workplace and its impact on employee performance. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics, 8(2).

Duffy, Maureen. Sperry, Len (2012). Mobbing. Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. New York: Oxford University Press. (p.42)

Ertürk, Abbas (2013). « Mobbing Behaviour: Victims and the Affected '', Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1): 169-173.

Flores, R. P. (2020). Mobbing at university, violence and group harassment. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala, 23(2), 772-800.

Friedenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of an academic mobbing. Florida Atlantic University, Lecture given at the University of Waterloo on April, 11, 2008.

Gebauer, K. (2005). Mobbing in der Schule. Walter-Vlg; 1. Edition (1. August 2005).

Giacalone, Robert A. Greenberg, Jerald (1997). Antisocial Behavior in Organisations. London: SAGE. 

Grebot, Élisabeth (2010). Harcèlement moral au travail. Pour en finir avec les idées reçues. Paris : Le Cavalier Bleu. 

Harper, J. (2010).“Just Us Justice. The Gentle Genocide of Workplace Mobbing”

Hershcovis, Sandy et al. (2007). « Predicting Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis », Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 228-238.

Hollis, Leah P. (2015). « Bully University? The Cost of Workplace Bullying and Employee Disengagement in American Higher Education », SAGE Open, 5(2): 1-11.

Lorenz, Konrad (2002). On Aggression. London: Routledge Classics. 1e edition : 1966. p.23

Lippel, K. (2010). The law of workplace bullying: An international overview. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J., 32, 1.

Matthiesen, S. B., Bjørkelo, B., & Burke, R. J. (2011). Workplace bullying as the dark side of whistleblowing. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2, 301-324.

Park, Sookyung. Workplace bullying and harassment in South Korea. Workplace Bully Harass, 2013, p. 91.

Pérez, B. E. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility facing the guarantee of free of mobbing working environments1. In I ilumno international virtual seminar review. 

Pompili, M., Lester, D., Innamorati, M., De Pisa, E., Iliceto, P., Puccinno, M., ... & Girardi, P. (2008). Suicide risk and exposure to mobbing. Work, 31(2), 237-243.

Seguin, E. (2016). Mobbing, ou l’extermination concertée d’une cible humaine. Chronique: La science c'est politique de l’Association francophone pour le savoir–Acfas. Université du Québec à Montréal.

Seguin, E. (2018).  Le «mobbing» menace la liberté universitaire. Le devoir. 12 juin 2018. Idées.

Suggala, S., Thomas, S., & Kureshi, S. (2020). Impact of Workplace Bullying on Employees’ Mental Health and Self-Worth. The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Well-Being, 1-20.

Tengilimoğlu, D., Mansur, F. A., & Dziegielewski, S. F. (2010). The effect of the mobbing on organizational commitment in the hospital setting: A field study. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(2), 128-141.

Tremblay-Chaput, V. (2018). Le mobbing en milieu académique Mieux comprendre le phénomène pour mieux l’enrayer.

Wajngurt, Clara (2014). «Prevention of Bullying on Campus », Academe, 100(3): 39-41.

Westhues, Kenneth (2002). « At the Mercy of the MOB », OH & S Canada, 18 (8): 30-36

Zapf, D., Gross, C., (2001). « Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension », European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 497-522. (p.504)