A New Generation Genetically Equipped to Resist "Bullying" Is Here to Shake Up the Workplace—Are You Ready?

Today, when we discuss "campus bullying," "cyberbullying," and "workplace bullying," it feels so natural that it is hard to imagine: "bullying" (霸凌) becoming part of Taiwan's official legal terminology is actually a relatively recent development.

Around 2004 marked an important starting point for "bullying" entering public discourse in Taiwan.

In early Taiwanese research examining the English phenomenon of "bullying," terms such as "bullying/harassment" (欺凌), "bullying" (欺負), "campus violence," or "aggressive behavior" were more commonly used. Literature compiled by the Academy for Judicial Officers notes that early domestic research predominantly used "qiling" (欺凌). However, the Child Welfare League Foundation (CWLF) began focusing on this issue in 2003 and later officially adopted "baling" (霸凌) as the Chinese translation for "Bully," after which it gradually became the standard term in Taiwan.

Starting in 2005, "bullying" clearly entered public discussion.

In 2005, the CWLF released the "Survey on Non-Physical Campus Bullying Among Children," directly using "bullying (bully)" to describe peer issues such as social exclusion and ridicule.

Around 2010, "bullying" truly became a household word, and "campus bullying" entered parliament, educational policy, and news media on a massive scale.

For instance, Legislative Yuan records directly addressed the issue using "campus bullying" and cited CWLF survey series conducted since 2004, defining "bullying" as harassment and oppression under power imbalances.

If we strictly distinguish statutory "laws" from administrative "statutory orders and regulations," the historical context becomes even more worthy of corporate leaders' attention.

Beginning in 2008, the Ministry of Education promulgated the "MOE Guidelines for Subsidizing the Promotion of Anti-Bullying Safe Schools," formally introducing "bullying" into the titles of educational administrative regulations.

The Gender Equity Education Act, amended and promulgated on June 22, 2011, officially added and defined "sexual bullying." On November 9 of the same year, Article 8 of the amended Educational Fundamental Act explicitly mandated that the state protect students from physical or mental harm caused by "corporal punishment and bullying behavior," authorizing the Ministry of Education to establish anti-bullying mechanisms and handling procedures.

On July 26, 2012, the Ministry of Education further promulgated the Regulations Governing Prevention of Campus Bullying, officially defining "bullying" and establishing mechanisms for investigation applications, case handling, remedies, anti-retaliation, and confidentiality.

Looking at this timeline, HR partners in business entities, doesn't this feel like uncanny déjà vu?

Fast forward to 2026, this legal language that originated on school campuses has officially made a major leap into corporate governance. The Occupational Safety and Health Act formally institutionalized workplace bullying, establishing employer responsibilities for prevention, complaints, investigation, and protection, while requiring business entities to institute grievance mechanisms.

What truly merits deep reflection by business owners and supervisors at all levels is not just when the word "bullying" was written into law, but rather: once the law names a specific harmful behavior, the way society perceives power changes along with it.

For labor law compliance training, board member continuing education credits, external committee members for workplace harassment/bullying, and litigation mediation representation, please contact Yesin Law Firm (Tel: +886-2-25156822; Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com).

1. From "Kids Just Roughhousing" to "Bullying": The greatest power of the law is naming and defining harmful behavior.

Today, when people see students being systematically excluded, humiliated, or isolated over time, they readily use the term campus bullying.

However, before "bullying" became an institutionalized legal term, identical incidents were often dismissed as "classmates not getting along," "just misbehaving," "just joking," or "kids being immature."

Therein lies the issue.

If a harm lacks a formal name, it is easily brushed off as personal hypersensitivity. Once the law names it, a completely different accountability framework emerges.

In 2011, the Educational Fundamental Act linked "bullying" to students' rights to learning, education, bodily autonomy, and personality development. In 2012, the Regulations Governing Prevention of Campus Bullying converted abstract concepts into an actionable system for identification, reporting, investigation, and handling. From then on, teachers could no longer simply say "make up among yourselves," nor could schools just tell victimized students to "just ignore them."

Because infringement upon personal dignity shifted from a mere interpersonal conflict to an organizational governance issue that institutions must address.

This represents one of the law's most profound educational functions in society: renaming harms that were previously normalized.

2. From Campus to Workplace: What was once "classmates are just joking around" becomes "the supervisor is just being strict."

Excuses heard on campuses two decades ago are playing out repeatedly in corporate settings today.

"The manager is just direct."

"Sales departments naturally carry heavy pressure."

"That's how we all grew up being chewed out back in the day."

"With such low stress tolerance, how can you step up to take on greater responsibilities?"

Don't these phrases sound intimately familiar in the workplace?

The issue isn't that strict management itself is illegal. Supervisors certainly possess management authority, and businesses cannot stop performance management simply because workplace bullying prevention laws were enacted.

What has genuinely changed is that the law demands enterprises distinguish between "reasonable management" and "inflicting harm by exploiting duty or power dynamics."

The new 2026 workplace bullying regime is an essential extension of this historical trajectory.

In the past, when corporate supervisors humiliated, excluded, threatened, or isolated subordinates, companies might have handled it at the level of HR management or company culture; today, it must face strict scrutiny under labor law compliance.

This means asking: Did they exploit job duties or power dynamics? Did they exceed necessary and reasonable business scope? Were the improper actions continuous? Did they cause physical or mental health harm?

This does not mean labeling every workplace conflict as bullying.

Quite the contrary: the clearer the legal definitions are, the better they protect legitimate management authority.

Because a professional workplace bullying investigation not only protects workers suffering from bullying, but also prevents legitimate performance reviews, PIPs, or job directives from being stigmatized simply because an employee "feels bullied."

3. What "Bullying" Entering the Law Truly Transformed: Taiwan's society began rethinking power relationships.

I believe this represents the most profound societal impact of embedding "bullying" into labor laws to regulate workplace management.

Campus bullying forced us to ask: Does superior numerical strength grant the right to pick on the vulnerable?

Sexual bullying forced us to ask: Can someone's biological sex characteristics, gender traits, sexual orientation, or gender identity be weaponized to belittle and attack them?

Today, incorporating workplace bullying prevention as a statutory employer duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act brings that very same question into corporate boardrooms and management suites:

Does possessing authority over evaluations, scheduling, promotions, information access, or organizational influence entitle a person to make others unable to say no under the pretext of "management"?

This is the new lesson corporate governance must understand.

The evolution of law should not be misconstrued as "employees are getting harder to manage nowadays."

The true paradigm shift is that society now demands those who wield power clearly justify how they exercise that power.

This is why enterprises today need more than an anti-bullying policy poster; they require a complete grievance system, procedural justice, investigation frameworks, anti-retaliation measures, and comprehensive training for managers at all levels.

From this perspective, the migration of the term "bullying" from school campuses into workplaces signals a vital education in power dynamics across Taiwan's organizational culture.

Advice from Attorney Chen Ye-xin

Looking back along this historical timeline is fascinating.

In 2008, "bullying" entered educational administrative codes; in 2011, "sexual bullying" and "bullying" were formally codified into statutes; in 2012, the Regulations Governing Prevention of Campus Bullying established a structured campus handling system; and by 2026, "workplace bullying" officially integrated into the corporate governance framework under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Over these dozen-plus years, what we have witnessed is far more than adding two characters to statutory text.

We have watched Taiwanese society come to realize that actions previously passed off as jokes, discipline, strict management, or "corporate culture" actually touch upon boundaries of human dignity, physical and mental health, and the proper use of power.

However, I must also remind corporate leaders of the flip side: bullying prevention is not intended to turn organizations into places where "no one can ever critique anyone."

A truly mature framework neither normalizes harm nor weaponizes/over-dramatizes every conflict as bullying.

Capable managers should still manage, demand performance, and point out errors. Excellent organizations must ensure managers understand that the legitimacy of management authority stems from business purpose, necessity, reasonableness, and respect for personal dignity—not from the title on their business card.

The inclusion of "bullying" in legal statutes has never been merely about giving victims a new term to file complaints; it requires every person in power to relearn the boundaries of that power.

When "that's how we all grew up being chewed out back in the day" is no longer an acceptable answer in 2026, is your company still relying on last-generation management culture to meet the new generation's workplace bullying prevention responsibilities?