Teacher Well-Being Under Threat: The Consequences of Workplace Bullying from Preschool to Higher Education

Abstract

Workplace bullying can be defined as the repeated occurrence of aggressive behaviour by one or more persons in a position of power towards the victim. This phenomenon remains insufficiently researched among education professionals, especially between different levels of education. With this in mind, the present study aims to assess and characterise this phenomenon in the Portuguese teacher population, as well as its consequences. A digital questionnaire was used for the study, which includes a socio-demographic component and two scales, namely the LIPT-60 scale and the WBMMS scale. The questionnaire was published online and made accessible to all teachers employed in schools in Portugal. The final sample consisted of 2003 teachers. The obtained results revealed that 22.5% of the sample acknowledged experiencing workplace bullying. The most prevalent aggressive behaviours included communication blockage and defamation and disregard for work. Vertical descent emerged as the most common form of bullying. More than half of the victims reported experiencing health issues, with a quarter of them requiring a medical certificate. Finally, we would like to emphasize the significance of this study as an initial step towards the prevention and reduction of workplace bullying among Portuguese teachers.

1. Introduction

Our society has undergone a transformation in recent decades, becoming one where personal and labour competitiveness prevail and where precarious employment and unemployment are increasingly prevalent. This phenomenon has affected numerous countries, leading to a growing disregard for respect and dignity towards others. This climate of insecurity has trapped individuals in an endless cycle of seeking more stable and advantageous positions, even if it means harming their colleagues. Consequently, this need gives rise to work environments dominated by mistrust, conflict, and violence [1,2].

As a result of these imbalances in interpersonal relationships, workplace bullying has become more prevalent, leading to serious consequences for employees, their families, and the organisation [3,4,5,6].

The phenomenon of workplace bullying has various nomenclatures, depending on the researcher and the country in which it is studied, as well as the prevailing cultural values [5,7]. Terms such as mobbing, bullying at work, and workplace harassment are commonly encountered in the scientific literature. Just as there are multiple concepts to identify the same phenomenon, there are numerous definitions that highlight frequency, continuity, power differences, and intentionality as key aspects [1,7,8,9].

In this sense, workplace bullying is characterised by the repeated occurrence of hostile behaviours and unethical conduct over an extended period. These behaviours are perpetrated by an individual in a position of power towards the victim, either due to their hierarchical position, their social support network (sociability), or their seniority in the organisation [10,11].

Workplace bullying and its characterisation have been subjects of interest for numerous researchers [12,13,14]. In the context of Portugal, the field of education has struggled to move away from authoritarian management practices, characterised by the concentration of decision-making power, towards more democratic management styles that encourage equitable participation of all members [15]. However, despite the persistence of this problem in many educational institutions and practices in Portugal, workplace bullying remains a topic that is undervalued and understudied in our educational environments. In a study conducted by João among higher education professors, 17.3% of the participants reported being victims of workplace bullying [16]. At an international level, the issue of bullying has received more attention and discussion, taking into account the specific country and its cultural context [9,11].

The institutions most at risk for workplace bullying are those where there is a lack of relationship between workers and their superiors, where tasks are not clearly defined, and where the mistakes of one individual can be attributed to another who is more vulnerable. Sectors such as education, healthcare, and the economy are particularly prone to this phenomenon [16,17,18,19]. Teachers are especially exposed to behaviours such as communication blockage, unfair criticism, and hindrance of progress [3,20]. Workplace bullying often manifests in subtle forms that are difficult to prove and rarely lead to formal consequences. Common behaviours include interrupting communication, excessive monitoring, dismissing ideas, and devaluing work. More overt forms involve verbal aggression such as insults, constant criticism, and offensive remarks. Additionally, social isolation, exclusion, removal of responsibilities, and public ridicule are frequently used to undermine the victim’s self-esteem and create an intimidating environment [21,22].

Vertical descent, which refers to bullying from hierarchical superiors, is the most frequently observed form of bullying among teachers, followed by horizontal bullying from colleagues in the same position [23,24,25]. The main factors contributing to bullying among teachers are related to power struggles, envy, the unstable personality of the perpetrator, and the professional competence of the victim [24,26].

The occurrence of workplace bullying has detrimental consequences for victims, manifesting as psychopathic, psychosomatic, or behavioural disorders [2,27]. Psychopathic disorders may be characterised by symptoms such as difficulty concentrating, fear and anxiety, irritability, depression, low self-esteem, stress, and suicidal thoughts [13,14,28,29]. Psychosomatic disorders can manifest physically through symptoms like tachycardia, hyperventilation, headaches, epigastric pain, dermatitis, insomnia, lower back pain, labyrinthitis, torticollis, alopecia, musculoskeletal pain, and hypertension [2,13,14,17,28,29]. Behavioural disorders may result in aggressive reactions, eating disorders (such as bulimia), increased use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, sexual dysfunction, social isolation, and frequent crying [29].

However, the consequences of workplace bullying extend beyond the victims themselves. Colleagues who witness these aggressive behaviours may also experience stress, dissatisfaction, and demotivation, leading to further conflict in the workplace that may even affect their family life [21].

When faced with a hostile work environment, victims typically seek support and help. If they are unable to find the necessary support to cope with workplace bullying, they may resort to taking sick leave or, in more severe cases, feel compelled to leave their job either voluntarily or involuntarily [3].

Both teachers and their students require a positive and conducive environment that fosters their professional development and well-being, ultimately promoting optimal performance. Given that workplace bullying has devastating effects on both physical and mental health, as well as work organisation, it is imperative to assess this issue to better understand and characterise the phenomenon and to establish future intervention strategies for prevention and intervention. Therefore, the objectives of the present research study are as follows:

• Characterise the prevalence of workplace bullying among teachers and examine the key characteristics of the perpetrators, as perceived by the victims.
• Identify the primary causes and effects of workplace bullying as perceived by the victims.
• Examine the relationships between socio-demographic/professional characteristics and teachers’ perceptions of bullying, as well as the impact on psychological well-being.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The study was quantitative, correlational, and cross-sectional. The used method for the collection of data was a questionnaire.

2.2. Population and Sample

The target population in this study was teachers working in Portugal, from pre-school to higher education.

There were 2025 questionnaires collected, of which 22 were excluded for not being adequately completed. The final sample obtained represents 1.14% of the Portuguese teachers, consisting of 2003 teachers who completed the questionnaire in digital format and who work at different levels of education (from preschool to higher education).

Of the total population, 74.9% were female and 25.1% were male; therefore, the population was mainly female. The average age of teachers was 47.73 years (SD = 8.20). Regarding the level of education at which they worked, 7.9% were teachers of preschool education, 46.4% of elementary education, 28.2% of secondary education, and 17.4% of higher education. Most of the sample worked in public institutions (88.3%) and had the marital status of married (66.4%). Regarding the academic degree, it was found that more than half of the sample had only a bachelor’s degree (55.5%), while only 22.8% of teachers reported having a master’s degree and 13.1% had a doctorate (see

Table 1. Sample characterisation.

		n	%
Gender	Women	1500	74.9
	Men	503	25.1
Age	Less than 30 years	40	2.0
	30 to 39 years	410	20.5
	40 to 49 years	750	37.4
	50 to 59 years	729	36.4
	More than 60 years	74	3.7
Marital Status	Married	1329	66.4
	Single	360	18.0
	Divorced	274	13.7
	Widowed	40	2.0
Level of education	Preschool education	1329	66.4
	Elementary education	930	46.4
	Secondary education	565	28.2
	Higher education	349	17.4
Type of institution	Public	1768	88,3
	Private	233	11.6
Academic degree	Bachelor’s Degree	1112	55.5
	Master’s Degree	457	22.8
	PhD	262	13.1
	Postdoctorate	20	2.2
	Other	16	0.8

).

2.3. Study Procedures

This study started with a previous phase in which we conducted a pilot study to test the functionality of the data collection tool (consisting of the questionnaires), which addressed six teachers (three male teachers and three female teachers at each level of education) and which focused on completeness as well as on comprehensibility, objectivity, and clarity.

After the pilot study, and based on its results, an instrument was prepared for use in a digital version composed of three parts. For this, we proceeded according to the checklist criteria (CHERRIES) of Eysenbach [30]. The introductory text explained that the data collected were for the purpose of conducting a research study that would not harm or impair the physical and psychological integrity of its participants. The first part included questions that aimed to obtain the socio-demographic and professional characterisation of the teachers participating in the study. In the second part, the LIPT-60 scale (Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization) was included, which allows for the evaluation of bullying at work, and questions that characterise the aggressor and evaluate the causes and health consequences among teachers. In the third and last part, the psychological WBMMS scale (Well-being Manifestation Measurement Scale) was included, which allows the evaluation of the psychological manifestation of well-being.

The questionnaire was written in digital format using the Google Docs program.

Subsequently, the authors were asked to authorise the use of the LIPT-60 and WBMMS scale. After obtaining an affirmative answer to use these scales, an assessment was made by the Ethics Committee of the General Directorate of Education of the Portuguese Ministry of Education, Science and Innovation, and it obtained authorisation to be applied, with the registration number 0512600001.

For the distribution of the questionnaire to the target population, a request was made for its dissemination via an email sent to all Portuguese educational institutions (from preschool to higher education) and requesting it be shared by the teachers of each institution. It should be noted that ethical principles were adhered to, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity of the participants, with written informed consent obtained from study participants (teachers).

2.4. Data Analyses

Frequencies were used to describe basic descriptive data, while contingency tables provided the foundation for comparative analysis between variables, allowing for the identification of potential associations between different data groups. For inferential statistics, a significance level of ≤0.05 was adopted as the threshold for validating results. In cases where the dependent variable was quantitative, parametric tests were applied, specifically the Student’s t-test, for comparing independent samples or one-way ANOVA when more than two samples were involved. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was employed to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two quantitative variables, identifying statistically significant correlations among the different parameters analysed. All statistical data were processed and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28.

2.5. Collection of Data

2.5.1. Socio-Demographic Data

The first part of the questionnaire consisted of issues related to personal information (gender, age, marital status), socio-economic information (education level) and professional information (workplace, employment contract type, and distance from the workplace).

2.5.2. Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT-60)

In the present study, we used the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT-60) scale of Rivera and Abuín [31], adapted and validated by João [32] in Portugal.

The LIPT-60 scale consists of 60 items that identify workplace bullying behaviours and consists of five response options ranging from 0 to 4, from “absolutely nothing” to “extremely”. Thus, this is a Lickert scale.

The instrument was validated, as it applied to a different population from the study by João [32]. The legitimacy of the application of the factorial analysis was assessed by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin of Sample Adequacy (KMO) suitability measure. The value obtained was considered excellent −0.974. The Bartlett test presents a value of χ² (231) = 97,922.808 with statistical significance (p < 0.001).

Six factors were obtained through forced factor analysis, taking into account the number of factors of the original scale author [31]. This factor explains 62.08% of the total variance. Taking into account the theoretical framework of the authors Rivera and Abuín [31], the dimensions obtained from the LIPT-60 were called: “communication blockade and defamation”, “direct attacks”, “isolation”, “work disrepute”, and “professional manipulation”.

The LIPT-60 has three harassment assessment indices, as follows:

The total NPHS (Number of Psychological Harassment Strategies) simply consists of all non-zero (absolutely nothing) answers. It indicates the frequency of the harassment strategies experienced and reports on the extent of the bullying suffered. In fact, this measure is conceptually the same as that used on the LIPT-60 dichotomous response scale, i.e., it refers to the average bullying behaviours experienced by the subjects.

The GIPH (Global Index of Psychological Harassment) is obtained by summing the values indicated in each item of the LIPT-60 scale and dividing this sum by the total number of the questionnaire items, i.e., 60. It combines the number of perceived bullying strategies and their perceived intensity, indicating the degree of the overall bullying that affects the subject.

The Average Psychological Harassment Index (APHI) is obtained by dividing the sum of the values reported in each item of the LIPT-60 scale by the total number of positive responses given by NSPH. This index is a measure of the degree of perceived harassment intensity, that is, an intensity index of perceived harassment strategies.

The internal consistency value for all items was 0.976, which is considered excellent. Regarding the scale dimensions, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.767 to 0.973, values considered valid.

2.5.3. Psychological Well-Being Manifestation Measurement Scale (WBMMS)

The second scale used was the psychological Well-being Manifestation Measurement Scale (WBMMS) used by Massé et al. [33], adapted and validated by Monteiro et al. [34] in a sample of students of higher education.

The WBMMS rating scale is composed of 25 items divided into six subscales/dimensions, which assess self-esteem (4 items), balance (4 items), social involvement (4 items), sociability, (4 items), control of self and events (4 items) and lastly happiness (5 items).

It is a Likert scale with five response options, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). The assessment of psychological well-being is performed by summing the scores of all items, i.e., the higher the total, the higher the perceived psychological well-being [34].

The WBMMS scale had to be validated due to the fact it had been applied to a different sample than the original study by Monteiro et al. [34]. The legitimacy of the application of the factorial analysis was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin of Sample Adequacy (KMO) suitability measure. The value obtained was considered excellent −0.957. The Bartlett test presents a value of χ² (231) = 33,025.558 with statistical significance (p < 0.001).

Five factors were obtained through exploratory factor analysis, taking into account the number of factors of the original author of the scale by Monteiro et al. [34]. This factor explains 67.72% of the total variance.

The dimensions obtained from WBMMS, following the authors Monteiro et al. [34], were termed: “balance and happiness”, “self-esteem”, “control of self and events”, “sociability”, and “social involvement”.

2.5.4. Awareness of Being a Victim of Bullying

In addition to the LIPT-60 scale, which assesses bullying behaviour at work, a dichotomous question was raised as to whether teachers suffering workplace bullying are aware of being/not being victims of this phenomenon.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Prevalence and Frequency of Bullying

In the present study, 42.0% of teachers reported having witnessed bullying behaviours in colleagues in the workplace.

A similar result was obtained by João [16] and López Cabarcos and Vázquez Rodrígues [35], in which 46.2% and 46%, respectively, of the teachers interviewed said they had witnessed aggression in the workplace. This type of question was also used by other researchers, namely Zabrodska and Kveton [25], who obtained a result of 28.8% and Russo and Popovic [21] who obtained a result of 31.7%.

Most of the sample reported at least one experience of workplace bullying conduct (71.5%), but only 22.5% of teachers acknowledged being victims.

A similar result was found in the study by João [16], with 17.3% of Portuguese higher education teachers. Russo and Popovic [21] found in their study that 22.4% of victims acknowledged being harassed at work. Ozturk et al. [24] obtained 21% recognition, and Justicia et al. [23] also obtained a similar result with 22.3%. On the other hand, at the international level, there are higher values of victimisation, with 35% found in the study by Piotrowski and King [12], 40.7% in the study by Caran et al. [17], 50% in the study by Cemaloğlu [36], and a higher result of 70.9% study by Kaya et al. [37].

The most frequent behaviours identified by participants using the LIPT-60 were: “criticism of your work” (47.6%), “interrupt you when you speak” (43.6%) and “your superiors don’t let you express or say what you have to say” (41.6%). The most verified behaviours are inserted in the dimensions of communication blockage and defamation and disregard for work.

These same dimensions were pointed out by Celik and Peker [3], who refer to “interruptions”, “criticisms” and “professional devaluation” as the conduct that teachers are most exposed to. Others, like Justicia et al. [23], Erturk [20], Ozturk et al. [24], and Russo and Popovic [21] also present similar results.

The duration and repetition of aggressive conduct are important in assessing the effects of workplace bullying. Most teachers who claimed to be aware of being a victim of bullying have suffered it for “more than 5 years” (30.5%). Regarding the frequency of bullying behaviours, 10.5% reported always suffering from aggressive behaviour and 13.9% of teachers reported it several times a week.

In the study by Zabrodska and Kveton [25], the most frequent duration was “1 to 5 years” with 28.9% of respondents. In another study, Ozturk et al. [24] reported the duration of “over 3 years” as the most representative, with 67%. These data are in line with the present study which states that most victims suffer workplace bullying for an extended period.

Regarding the global indices that make up the LIPT-60 scale and taking into account the 2003 subjects (who indicated on the LIPT-60 scale that they suffered from at least one mobbing behaviour), it was found that:

• NPHS ranges from 1 to 60 conduits, with a mean value of 8.7 and a standard deviation of 11.40. This means that teachers who suffer from mobbing report that on average they suffer nine behaviours of aggression in the workplace.
• APHI ranges from 0 to 3.95, with a mean value of 0.25 and a standard deviation of 0.43. The overall intensity of bullying is 0.25.
• APHI ranges from 1 to 4, with a mean of 1.40 and a standard deviation of 0.56.

3.2. Sharing the Bullying Experience

Most teachers who participated in the study and assumed themselves to be victims reported having shared/reported the harassing behaviour (83.0%). When asked with whom they had shared it, the vast majority responded that they shared what they were experiencing mainly with co-workers (61.6%), friends (53.0%), and family members (53.0%).

Sharing with friends and family was the most commonly found result in the studies by Ozturk et al. [24], with 91%, and López Cabarcos and Vázquez Rodrígues [35], with 37.2%.

Regarding the perception of support given during the experience of bullying, 65.9% of teachers report having had support, which came mainly from several colleagues (57.6%) or one colleague (40.7%).

3.3. Characteristics of the Aggressor

The teachers who participated in the study reported the main aggressor as the direction/administration body (48.6%) being the predominant descending vertical bullying in the present study.

This type of bullying was also the most commonly found in the study by Zabrodska and Kveton [25] in which 73.3% of victims reported their superiors as the aggressors. In Ozturk et al. [24] it was found that the same type of bullying was the most representative with 70%, and this result is repeated in the studies by Justicia et al. [23] and Celep and Eminoglu [38].

Regarding gender, it was found that the aggressors were mostly female and male (47.4%) and were 40 to 49 years old (57.8%).

3.4. Perception of Health Effects on the Victim

Regarding the consequences of workplace bullying on health, it was found that 83.1% of teachers who were aware of being victims of bullying reported having had health problems. The health consequences mentioned were mainly psychopathic: anxiety (71.7%), insomnia (67.2%), feelings of frustration, failure, and helplessness (58.7%), feelings of insecurity (56%) and irritability (55.5%). It is notable that in the face of bullying behaviour, some teachers thought of suicide (9.1%).

These types of health problems were also pointed out in the studies of López Cabarcos and Vázquez Rodrígues [35] and Droppa et al. [13].

Regarding the need to go to a doctor for a certificate for sick leave, about a quarter of the teachers who assumed themselves as victims felt the need to do so (23.5%). The frequency of the sick leave certification requests was predominantly once (59.4%) and twice (18.9%).

3.5. Causes of the Workplace Bullying

The main causes reported by victims of workplace bullying were: not giving in or being influenced by blackmail or servility (59.5%), envy or jealousy (51.9%), and authoritarian management (42.4%).

These results are similar to Taylor’s Finnish study where “envy” and “competition” are cited as the main causes of workplace bullying. Envy is also identified in the study by Ozturk et al. [24] as the leading cause of bullying. In the research developed by Justicia et al. [23] the most mentioned causes were “power struggles”, i.e., “competition”, “envy” and “arrogance of the aggressor”.

3.6. Age Versus Workplace Bullying

It was concluded that as age increases, the average values of all factors on the LIPT-60 scale also increase, indicating that older participants are more likely to experience workplace bullying behaviours (see

Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between age and LIPT-60 factors.

LIPT-60 Factors	Age
Communication blockage and defamation	0.112 **
Direct attacks	0.125 **
Isolation	0.130 **
Disregard for one’s work	0.109 **
Personal discredit	0.168 **
Professional manipulation	0.143 **

** indicates p < 0.01.

).

Communication blockage and defamation (r = 0.122), direct attacks (r = 0.125), isolation (r = 0.130), workplace disrepute (r = 0.109), personal disrepute (r = 0.168) and professional manipulation (r = 0.143) correlate significantly with the age variable, with positive and very weak correlation coefficients.

This result was also obtained by Celep and Eminoglu [38] in which teachers aged 33 to 42 are the most exposed to bullying, compared to teachers from 23 to 32 years old.

3.7. Gender Versus Workplace Bullying

After applying the t-Student test, it was found that none of the factors on the LIPT-60 scale correlates with gender (see

Table 3. Significance of LIPT-60 factor differences according to the gender variable.

	Male		Female
	A	SD	A	SD	Sig.
Communication blockage and defamation	0.48	0.72	0.42	0.67	0.711
Direct attacks	0.06	0.29	0.04	0.18	0.065
Isolation	0.15	0.46	0.12	0.39	0.128
Disregard for one’s work	0.24	0.48	0.22	0.46	0.285
Personal discredit	0.13	0.43	0.10	0.32	0.088
Professional manipulation	0.11	0.43	0.07	0.30	0.064

).

This result was also found in the studies by Celik and Peker [3] and Cemaloğlu [36].

3.8. Grade Level Being Taught Versus Workplace Bullying

When applying the Manova multivariate test, it was found that the mean value of the factors that make up the LIPT-60 scale show statistically significant differences, considering the grade level taught by the teachers, with Wilks’ Lambda = 0.979, F(18, 5640.369) = 2.361, and p = 0.001 (see

Table 4. Significance of differences in LIPT-60 factors according to grade level.

	Preschool		Elementary		Secondary		Academic/Higher
	A	SD	A	SD	A	SD	A	SD	Sig.
I factor	0.35	0.54	0.40	0.64	0.43	0.70	0.54	0.79	0.006 *
II factor	0.02	0.10	0.05	0.23	0.05	0.23	0.04	0.16	0.565
III factor	0.06	0.24	0.11	0.36	0.14	0.45	0.19	0.49	0.004 *
IV factor	0.13	0.33	0.20	0.45	0.25	0.52	0.26	0.46	0.007 *
V factor	0.05	0.18	0.10	0.34	0.11	0.38	0.11	0.39	0.278
VI factor	0.05	0.19	0.08	0.34	0.07	0.33	0.11	0.36	0.227

* indicates p < 0.05.

).

In the first factor, communication blockage and defamation (p = 0.006), it was found that higher education teachers had a higher average value, compared to preschool and elementary school teachers (0.54 vs. 0.35 and 0.40).

In the isolation factor (p = 0.004), teachers who teach in higher education have a significantly higher average value of this factor of the LIPT-60 scale, compared to preschool teachers (0.19 vs. 0.06).

Concerning the deprecation for one’s work factor (p = 0.007), secondary and higher education teachers have a higher average value compared to preschool teachers (0.25 and 0.26 vs. 0.13).

Regarding the grade level, i.e., workplace, it was observed that teachers who work in higher education are more exposed to workplace bullying.

A similar result was found in the study by Zabrodska and Kveton [25], which assessed the workplace most exposed to bullying and found that 38.8% of respondents reported higher education. The scientific literature attributes this finding to several factors associated with the higher education environment, including increasing workloads, short-term contracts, funding pressures, heightened competition, a focus on individual achievement, and power imbalances between administrators and faculty, all of which contribute to workplace hostility [6,25,39,40].

3.9. Bullying Versus Psychological Well-Being

All factors on the LIPT-60 scale correlate with all factors on the WBMMS scale, which means that the higher the average value of workplace bullying, the lower the average value of well-being (see

Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficient between the LIPT-60 and WBMMS factors.

	Balance and Happiness	Self-Esteem	Control of Self and Events	Sociability	Social Involvement
Communication blockage and defamation	−0.229 **	−0.036	−0.148 **	−0.288 **	−0.205 **
Direct attacks	−0.119 **	−0.080 **	−0.119 **	−0.168 **	−0.117 **
Isolation	−0.160 **	−0.059 **	−0.143 **	−0.216 **	−0.160 **
Disregard for one’s work	−0.235 **	−0.060 **	−0.125 **	−0.256 **	−0.176 **
Personal discredit	−0.158 **	−0.027	−0.084 **	−0.176 **	−0.129 **
Professional manipulation	−0.099 **	−0.037	−0.098 **	−0.139 **	−0.093 **

** indicates p < 0.01.

).

The communication blockage and defamation factor of the LIPT-60 scale is significantly correlated with the WBMMS factors and the correlation coefficient is negative and very weak in the control of self and events factor (r = −0.148) and negative and weak in the balance and happiness (r = −0.229), sociability (r = −0.288) and social involvement (r = −0.205) factors.

The factor of direct attacks correlates with the factors of the WBMMS scale, being the correlation coefficient negative and very weak in all.

The isolation factor correlates with the WBMMS factors with a negative and very weak correlation coefficient in all dimensions except that of sociability (r = −0.216) with which it has a weak and also negative coefficient.

Regarding the factor of lack of employment, the correlation coefficient with the WBMMS scale is negative and very weak in the factors of self-esteem (r = −0.060), control of self and events (r = −0.125) and social involvement (r = −0.176). and weak in the factors of balance and happiness (r = −0.235) and sociability (r = −0.256).

In the personal self-esteem factor, there was a statistically significant correlation in the dimensions of balance and happiness (r = −0.158), control of self and events (r = −0.084), sociability (r = −0.176) and social involvement (r = −0.129), the correlation coefficient being negative and very weak.

Lastly, in the professional manipulation factor, a statistically significant correlation was found in the balance and happiness (r = −0.099), control of self and events (r = −0.098), sociability (r = −0.139) and involvement dimensions (r = −0.093), with a negative and very weak correlation coefficient.

In brief, the higher the workplace bullying the lower the well-being of the individual. In line with this result, de Wet [18] concluded that increased harassment behaviour at work negatively affects personal well-being. This conclusion is also found in the study by Raya Trenas et al. [41].

4. Conclusions

At a national level, a shortage of studies on workplace bullying was identified in the field of education [16]. In this mode, the existence of new studies is considered pertinent not only in a quantitative but also in a qualitative context, allied with studies covering the assessment of the coping mechanisms used by victims who face bullying at work.

In this sense, this study was designed to evaluate and characterise workplace bullying among teachers. It was found that most of the sample reported that they had experienced at least one conduct of bullying in the workplace, but only 22.5% acknowledged being a victim. Almost half of the sample reported having witnessed harassing behaviour in their workplace. On average, a teacher experiences nine bullying behaviours in his/her workplace, and the most verified behaviours fall within the dimensions of communication blockage, defamation, and disregard for one’s work.

Workplace bullying adversely affects the well-being of teachers, the higher the rates of harassment, the lesser the dimensions of balance and happiness, self-esteem, control of self and events, sociability, and social involvement.

The most frequent bullying is the downward vertical in which the direction/administrative body elements are identified as the main aggressors.

The vast majority of teachers who reported being aware of being victims of bullying reported having health problems related to the experience of workplace bullying. The most commonly identified health problems were anxiety, insomnia, frustration and impotence, insecurity and irritability, i.e., psychopathic disorders. About nearly a quarter of the subjects who reported suffering from health problems requested medical sick leave.

It was observed that the variable age was correlated with the presence of workplace bullying, that is, the older the person, the greater the bullying at work. Regarding gender, no significant correlations were found with workplace bullying.

Regarding the grade level, significant correlations were observed in the dimension of communication blockage and defamation, in the dimension of isolation, and in the dimension of disregard for one’s work—the teachers who taught at a higher education level had a higher frequency of workplace bullying behaviours in comparison to inferior grade levels. That is, higher education teachers are more likely to experience harassment behaviours such as criticism at work, interruptions when speaking, devaluation of self-opinion, and devaluation of the work carried out. As mentioned earlier, factors such as heavy workloads, precarious contracts, competition, individualism, and power imbalances between administrators and faculty in higher education institutions can contribute to workplace bullying.

In short, the study of workplace bullying has proved to be of the utmost importance in assessing prevalence, causes and consequences. Using these data, future strategies can be established to prevent this phenomenon.

4.1. Practical Implications

The study’s findings highlight critical implications for educational institutions, policymakers, and administrators. With 42% of teachers witnessing bullying and 71.5% experiencing it, immediate action is necessary. Schools and universities must enhance awareness and strengthen anti-bullying policies, particularly concerning power dynamics between administrators and teachers. Given that 83.1% of victims reported health issues, supportive environments are essential for teachers to report bullying safely, with access to counselling and peer support services. Training for faculty and administrators on identifying and preventing bullying is vital, focusing on communication and conflict resolution. It is noteworthy, as Duffy and Sperry [42] pointed out, that the prevention of workplace bullying should start during the initial training of teachers, through the transmission of information about the characteristics of this phenomenon and possible action strategies. Prevention must then extend to workplaces, i.e., all educational institutions and all their professionals. In this case, directors/administration have a fundamental role in detecting and acting on possible situations of bullying at work [16,43], which implies that there should be adequate training for the administration body [15]. Outside the workplace, we can also find other ways to prevent bullying, as pointed out in our study, such as sharing our experiences with colleagues, friends, and family. This sharing and support have been noted by several researchers as a fundamental way to deal with this phenomenon [9,44].

In this way, it is essential that all organisations act in a manner that avoids harmful behaviour by allowing relationships established between professionals to be a source of well-being based on respect and cooperation.

4.2. Limitations

In terms of the study’s limitations, it was found that the distribution of the questionnaire may have been influenced by the administrations of the educational establishments, as the administration was most frequently identified in our study as a possible aggressor. To overcome this potential obstacle, the questionnaire was also disseminated on social media, websites, and blogs related to the profession. Consequently, another limitation arises from the method of dissemination and completion of the questionnaires, which may have been influenced by the respondents’ sensitivity to the topic. This implies that those experiencing workplace bullying may have felt a greater need to complete the questionnaire compared to those who do not experience harassment.