It’s not just work tension. Here’s how to distinguish legitimate professional criticism from the systematic demolition of the person.
The term “mobbing” is often used generically, but in reality it indicates a precise and complex phenomenon, with both legal and clinical relevance. In the workplace, the mobbing consists of a systematic and prolonged series of hostile, oppressive or humiliating behaviors implemented towards an individual, with the effect of isolating him, delegitimizing him or pushing him to leave.
From a typological point of view, mobbing can take different forms. We talk about vertical mobbing “from above” when the oppressive conduct comes from hierarchical superiors; it is the best known case, often linked to abuses of power. However, there is also the horizontal mobbingexercised between colleagues of the same level, and a less intuitive but equally relevant form: vertical mobbing “from below”, when subordinates carry out hostile behavior towards a top figure.
When mobbing becomes a case of public delegitimization
An emblematic example of the latter dynamic can occur in contexts highly exposed to public judgment, such as the musical one. Imagine a orchestra director openly contested by its orchestra members, not through physiological professional dissent, but through coordinated actions of delegitimization. If we add to this a public demonstration – for example dramatic applause, amplified by the media, when the termination of the professional relationship is announced – we enter particularly delicate territory.
In such a situation, in fact, we are no longer faced with a simple artistic or organizational disagreement, but with a possible case of mobbing with effects aggravated by the public dimension. The injury does not only concern the internal working relationship, but directly affects the reputation and on the subject’s professional image, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
From a legal point of view, in order to talk about mobbing it is necessary to demonstrate some fundamental elements: the systematic nature of the conduct, the persecutory or otherwise discriminatory intent, the causal link between the actions suffered and the damage suffered. In the presence of these requirements, the injured person can take action to obtain a compensationwhich can include various items: financial damage (loss of work opportunities), damage to the image and, above all, non-economic damage.
The impact of neuropsychological damage on mental health
This is where the clinical profile comes into play. Mobbing behaviors, especially if prolonged over time and accompanied by public humiliation, can generate real crime neuropsychological damage. Chronic anxiety, sleep disorders, depression, loss of self-esteem, up to forms of post-traumatic stress disorder: these are documented consequences that affect the individual’s mental health and ability to work.
Neuropsychological damage is not an abstract concept, but an element that is increasingly recognized even in the courts, where supported by medical and psychological assessments. The compromise of mental well-being, especially when linked to toxic work dynamics, can translate into significant compensation, sometimes very high, precisely because of the difficulty of recovery and the impact on the person’s overall life.
In the case of one public delegitimizationlike the one described, the damage can be amplified: the loss of professional credibility in front of a wider audience is added to the individual suffering. In fields such as the artistic or managerial one, where reputation is an integral part of the job, this type of injury can have particularly serious effects.
For this reason it is essential to distinguish between legitimate criticism – even harsh – and behaviors which, in terms of modality, intensity and repetition, go beyond mobbing. The boundary line is not always immediate, but it becomes evident when the objective is no longer professional confrontation, but rather the demolition of the person.
Ultimately, mobbing is not just a matter of conflict at work: it is a form of psychological violence structured, which can produce concrete and recognizable damage, both on a legal and clinical level. Ignoring its seriousness or reducing it to simple “work tension” means underestimating a phenomenon which, especially in its public manifestations, can have profound and lasting consequences. Every possible allusion to the case Venice it is purely intentional.
