From “We Are a Family” to the Debate on Mobbing

From “We Are a Family” to the Debate on Mobbing

The development of negative feelings toward the workplace among a significant number of people with work experience has become so widespread that it has given rise to the concept of the “Monday Syndrome.” Disliking one’s workplace almost seems to have become part of the nature of being an employee. However, the way this situation is expressed varies noticeably between generations. Previous generations often tended to legitimize the difficulties they experienced through more emotional and inclusive expressions such as “our breadwinning place,” “we are a family here,” or “we are all in the same boat.” Today, however, younger employees are seen using a more distant and sometimes harsher language when describing the workplace. The workplace is no longer positioned as a place of belonging, but rather as an institution where boundaries need to be drawn.

Not every negative workplace experience can be explained solely by an intense workload or difficult managers. In some cases, the behaviors employees encounter go beyond ordinary work stress or disciplinary practices. Constant criticism, exclusion, humiliation, or systematic devaluation can gradually create serious psychological pressure on employees. Such systematic and repetitive forms of psychological pressure are referred to in the literature as ‘mobbing.’

The word mobbing originates from English and derives from the word “mob,” which describes aggressive behavior by a group toward a common target. When the concept first emerged, it was used to describe weaker animals attacking a stronger rival together. Over time, the term was first used to describe bullying behaviors in schools and later psychological harassment in workplaces.

Studies on psychological harassment in the workplace date back to the 1970s. One of the first researchers in the field, Heinz Leymann, stated that behaviors such as blocking communication, isolating individuals socially, damaging a person’s reputation, weakening their professional position, and targeting their physical or psychological health, when repeated systematically over a long period, lead to serious exhaustion for employees, and he defined this situation as mobbing.

Individuals exposed to mobbing may experience not only professional difficulties but also various psychological and physical health problems. Alongside psychological struggles such as depression, panic attacks, and intense inner distress, physical problems like insomnia, memory issues, digestive disorders, gastritis, and weakened immune systems may also emerge. Over time, individuals suffering from burnout may become unable to continue their work, which can also bring economic difficulties.

Today, the legal system increasingly relies on the principle of “approximate proof” in evaluating mobbing claims in order to protect employees. According to this principle, even if direct and definitive evidence is difficult to obtain, strong indications may still be accepted as proof of mobbing. Indeed, Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 regulates the employer’s obligation to protect employees against psychological harassment and evaluates mobbing behaviors as an attack on employees’ personal rights.

As a result of increasing psychological and legal awareness today, psychological pressure in the workplace is no longer seen as an invisible individual problem, but rather as a more visible social issue. However, the striking point here is not only the existence of mobbing cases, but also how different generations interpret them. While previous generations tended to see the workplace as a “breadwinning place” and tolerate the difficulties they experienced, younger generations express the same experiences in a more critical language and adopt a more visible stance in setting boundaries. Therefore, today’s discussions about working life point not only to working conditions, but also to the transformation of workplace culture and employee expectations. Perhaps what has changed is not employees’ resilience, but the growing collective awareness that some behaviors should no longer be accepted as a natural part of working life.