Peers, Not Police: How Colleagues Can Defuse Workplace Aggression

Unfortunately, workplace violence has become a household term in recent years, as laws evolve to keep pace with publicized incidents of violence and mass shootings. Yet within individual workplace settings, when tempers run hot, there are effective methods of cooling things down, especially when initiated by respectful peers and colleagues.

Many people admit when they are upset, the best candidates to calm them down are trusted family and friends. But because someone who becomes irate in the workplace is unlikely to have immediate access to their intimate circle of influence, trusted colleagues and peers may be the next best option, depending on who they are.

Ivana Vranjes et al. (2025) examined the impact of bystander intervention on interpersonal workplace aggression. They recognized that the effectiveness of such intervention depends on the aggressor’s response, which will likely reflect his or her relationship with the bystander.

Vranjes et al. (ibid.) proposed that organizations should train bystanders to consider several factors when intervening to address a hostile employee:
(1) the extent of the perpetrator’s commitment to behavior — for instance, whether or not it is intentional,
(2) the timing and manner of intervention — for example, do they intervene in the moment or discuss it after the fact,
(3) whether the perpetrator is a person who cares about being moral and behaving as expected, and
(4) the relationship and relative power the bystander has as compared with the perpetrator — which will likely impact how the perpetrator will respond to the intervention.

Vranjes et al. (supra) report that constructive bystander interventions that reduce a perpetrator’s identity threat and maintain his or her sense of moral and relational identity are more likely to be effective. They suggest that these interventions decrease the risk of retaliation and are particularly useful when the bystander has less power than the aggressor.

They describe one benefit of constructive interventions as the fact that they consider the perspective of the perpetrator, affording them the opportunity to rethink and reconstruct their behavior going forward, reducing the potential for future aggression.

Vranjes et al. (supra) note that constructive interventions are appropriate only when aggression has not caused severe harm to a victim. In cases of severe aggression with substantial damage to a victim, such as occurs in cases of bullying, formal action might be necessary.

This type of action requires the bystander to be more powerful than the aggressor to protect their safety, as well as the victim. They caution, however, about potential covert aggression that may continue after intervention from a powerful bystander.

Intervention Requires Management Involvement

As with any policy, effective workplace strategy requires clear rules and regulations, as well as ongoing employee management and oversight. Vranjes et al. note that the success of a seemingly effective intervention will become clearer over time only when perpetrator behavior is carefully monitored, and others continue to reenforce the sentiment that aggressive behavior is unacceptable.

Although peer influence can help shape employee behavior, they remind us that high-power individuals within an organization have a responsibility to address workplace aggression and should promote top-down approaches to this issue instead of delegating behavioral management solely to employees’ own efforts.

Vranjes et al. (supra) conclude that although bystander intervention can be a powerful method of potentially reducing interpersonal workplace aggression, it can be ineffective and even potentially harmful when an aggressor perceives identity threat and reacts defensively. They acknowledge that although defensiveness may be expected, some perpetrators are able to react more productively, viewing the intervention as an opportunity for growth.

They also note that different individuals experience threats to moral and relational identity differently and respond accordingly due to a personal process of sensemaking. Some aggressors react punitively by escalating hostility, others adopt a more restorative approach such as apologizing to the victim of their animosity.

Vranjes et al. (supra) also note that the reactions of others, as well as the passage of time, can prompt further sensemaking, altering an aggressor’s initial reaction to an incident.

Bystanders can make a positive difference on the behavior of workplace aggressors and should proactively think through how they would address peers and colleagues within a situation creating animosity — before it occurs.