How Can a Company Achieve Zero Workplace Bullying Complaints? Asking the Wrong Question—The Focus Must Be Reducing Actual Bullying Incidents!

"Our company had zero workplace bullying complaints this year—that means our system is working great, right?"

Every time I hear an HR executive say this, I worry for their company. Zero complaints isn't necessarily good news. It doesn't mean the workplace is faultless; rather, the enterprise may be mistaking "zero complaint cases" for "zero bullying behavior"—a false sense of harmony.

Zero complaints might mean a healthy workplace, but it could also mean employees don't trust complaints will be handled fairly and effectively, fear retaliation, or believe "speaking up changes nothing," driving bullying under the radar.

Therefore, what enterprises should truly pursue is not zero complaints on paper, but reducing the actual incidence of workplace bullying while building a trustworthy complaint system and psychological safety that allows employees to speak the truth.

With the new workplace bullying prevention regulations officially coming into effect on July 1, 2026, regardless of business size, any employer who becomes aware of or receives a workplace bullying complaint must initiate prevention mechanisms by law.

The goal of workplace bullying prevention has never been helping companies erase complaint numbers to zero, but requiring enterprises to genuinely identify risks, halt infringements, repair the work environment, and foster a workplace with psychological safety.

First: Complaint volume represents "problems made visible," not the actual incidence rate of workplace bullying.

If an enterprise sets "zero complaints" as a KPI for HR or managers, it creates perverse incentives: managers may persuade employees not to file complaints, HR may prematurely label issues as communication misunderstandings, or the company might treat complaint withdrawals as successful resolutions—improperly using mediation procedures to pressure complainants into withdrawing. None of these practices align with legal standards.

While this management style makes numbers look pristine on the surface, it pushes risks underground, creating a volcano waiting to erupt.

Under the legislative intent of employer prevention duties, the obligation is not to keep everyone silent, but to detect misconduct early. Enterprises should evaluate multiple signals in tandem: anonymous surveys, exit interviews, abnormal turnover rates, leave rates, cross-departmental transfers, employee willingness to complain, and trust in the investigation system. Zero complaints could mean zero incidents—or zero trust. Only cross-referencing these signals constitutes true risk management.

HR partners must understand that as complaint channels gain credibility, a short-term rise in case numbers doesn't necessarily indicate a deteriorating environment; it often means suppressed issues are finally coming to light. The absolute last thing to do is blame employees for "complaining too much."

Second: Reducing bullying behavior must begin with day-to-day managerial conduct.

Preventing workplace bullying cannot stop at publishing a policy, setting up an email inbox, and asking employees to sign an acknowledgment form.

Most legal risks arise during daily task assignments, performance reviews, group messaging, scheduling, evaluations, and Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) processes. Is a manager pointing out concrete performance gaps, or directly humiliating an employee's character? Are they fairly demanding improvement, or practicing favoritism? Are they allowing employees to explain, or treating differing opinions as defiance?

Therefore, managerial onboarding and training must go beyond reciting legal definitions of workplace bullying. It must train managers on giving constructive feedback, setting realistic goals, resolving conflicts, managing emotions, preserving documentation, and distinguishing strict management from personal degradation.

Companies should also incorporate management style into promotions and performance evaluations. If a company preaches zero tolerance on one hand but rewards managers who drive short-term results through yelling, humiliation, and fear on the other, even the most thorough compliance documentation cannot alter the real organizational culture.

Third: Never view complaint cases as a stain; they are a stress test of governance capacity.

Upon receiving a complaint, what a company must minimize is not the number of cases, but the risk of secondary harm, retaliation, procedural failure, and recurring incidents.

Enterprises must uphold procedural justice through strict confidentiality, conflict-of-interest recusal, objective interviews, evidence preservation, and adequate opportunities to respond. Simultaneously, clear anti-retaliation measures must be enforced so complainants, witnesses, or investigation helpers do not face reduced shifts, lower ratings, isolation, or career penalties for telling the truth.

In recent cases involving combined workplace sexual harassment and bullying, the Taipei District Court specifically examined whether companies established prevention regulations, conducted confidential investigations, prohibited retaliation, and provided training. These mechanisms and their execution formed crucial background for determining the legality of subsequent disciplinary actions.

Once an investigation concludes, companies must not lock the report in a cabinet. They must continuously monitor whether departments improve, managers receive coaching, victims return to work safely, silence culture persists, or similar incidents reoccur.

Attorney Chen Yexin’s Advice:

"Zero complaints" is an easy number to fabricate; a "low incidence of bullying" is a governance milestone requiring long-term commitment.

What truly warrants tracking is not how many complaints were received this year, but whether managers understand management boundaries, whether employees feel safe speaking up, whether the company conducts fair investigations, whether retaliation is prohibited, and whether every incident drives genuine institutional improvement.

Enterprises should not fear someone filing a complaint; they should fear everyone losing faith in the complaint system. When your company claims "zero workplace bullying complaints this year," does it mean employees are truly safe from bullying—or that they've chosen to stay silent, letting hidden incidents multiply until the inevitable explosion?