Under the New Workplace Bullying Legal Regime, a Manager’s Most Vital Competency Is a "Sense of Boundaries"

"I'm a manager—am I not even allowed to manage my employees anymore?"

Whenever workplace bullying comes up lately, this is the most common grievance I hear from managers.

My answer is always: Of course that's not the case.

Managers have the authority to set performance standards, track project milestones, correct errors, assign tasks, and—within the bounds of labor laws and company policies—conduct performance appraisals, transfer personnel, and enforce disciplinary measures. These fall squarely within a manager's legitimate managerial prerogative.

The real issue is not whether you can manage, but where you draw the line.

Under the new workplace bullying provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, taking effect on July 1, 2026, a crucial boundary has been codified into law:

Exploiting one's position or hierarchical authority beyond what is necessary and reasonable for business operations to persistently subject a worker to offensive, threatening, dismissive, isolating, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate words or conduct, thereby endangering their physical or mental health, may constitute workplace bullying. In severe cases, the conduct does not even need to be repetitive.

In this new legal era, the most critical management lesson leaders must master is not performance management—it is developing a "sense of boundaries."

For labor compliance training, delineating reasonable management vs. workplace bullying, grievance handling & investigation simulation workshops, board member continuing education certification, external committee members for workplace bullying and sexual harassment, PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) case simulation workshops, and litigation/mediation representation, please contact: Yesin Law Firm (Tel: +886-2-2515-6822 | Official Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com).

1. Managers Can Manage Work, but Remember: "Address the Issue, Not the Person"

The first boundary managers must establish under the new regime is separating operational demands from evaluations of personal character.

• If a subordinate’s report contains errors, you may require a rewrite.

  
  

• If a project is delayed, you may demand an explanation.

  
  

• If performance falls short, you may set improvement milestones.

  
  

However, remarks such as: "Do you even have a brain?", "You have the nerve to collect a paycheck with work like this?", or "You're the biggest problem in this entire company" cross the line from assessing performance to attacking a subordinate's personal dignity.

This is the easiest tripwire for managers: what begins as addressing an operational mistake escalates into public humiliation, labeling, mocking capability, and launching personal attacks.

The legal inquiry focuses on three fundamental tests:

1. Does the management action serve a legitimate purpose?

   
   

2. Are the means chosen genuinely necessary for business operations?

   
   

3. Is the action reasonable when evaluated as a whole?

   
   

Under the statutory guidelines, reasonable operational guidance or administrative supervision generally does not constitute workplace bullying. However, imposing impossible targets or demanding tasks that cannot realistically be completed within an unreasonable timeframe crosses the legal threshold.

Corporate leaders must remember:

"Critique the work, do not humiliate the person; manage performance, do not attack personal character."

This is lesson one in building boundary awareness.

2. Knowing Details Through Work Does Not Grant Free Rein to Ask or Disclose Everything

The second boundary is personal privacy.

In the course of duty, a manager may learn about an employee's medical conditions, family circumstances, marital status, pregnancy, mental distress, financial difficulties, or even their use of the company’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counseling services.

However, "learning something in an official capacity" is not an "unrestricted license to use it."

• Example: If an employee takes frequent sick leave, a manager’s legitimate focus should be: "How can we cover your workload? Does the company need to provide support?" It is inappropriate to press in a team meeting, "What illness do you actually have?"—and worse still to broadcast in a group chat, "Their mental health hasn't been great lately, so everyone please cut them some slack."

  
  

• Example: If an employee's performance slips, a manager may address the performance gap, but should never bring the employee's marriage, dating life, family plans, or fertility decisions into the discussion—let alone weaponize these private matters for mockery, isolation, or managerial intimidation.

  
  

The Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures explicitly list "deliberately spreading rumors or disclosing private matters" as factors to be comprehensively evaluated when determining workplace bullying. Simultaneously, employers are mandated to maintain a workplace free from bullying and rigorously safeguard individual privacy.

Before probing into an employee's private affairs, every manager should pause and ask:

"Is knowing this truly necessary to get the job done?"

If the answer is no, stop before the words leave your mouth.

3. A True Sense of Boundaries: The Greater the Power, the Better You Know What Not to Do

The greatest danger in workplace bullying cases is rarely that managers are unaware of their authority, but rather that they fail to realize how heavy that authority weighs on others.

• A manager might offhandedly say in a meeting: "That person has had a lot of issues lately."

  
  

  The subordinate hears: "The boss has already written me off."

  
  

• A manager removes an employee from a group chat;

  
  

  The employee perceives targeted isolation.

  
  

• A manager texts at 11:00 PM: "Have this on my desk tomorrow morning";

  
  

  The subordinate faces a directive they feel powerless to decline.

  
  

Managerial prerogative cannot be assessed solely by asking "Do I have the formal right to demand this?" One must examine the actual impact that authority exerts on the receiving party.

Before adopting aggressive management measures, managers should ask three self-check questions:

1. Direct Connection: Does this action have a direct, demonstrable link to a legitimate business objective?

   
   

2. Least Intrusive Means: Is there an alternative approach that accomplishes the same goal while minimizing interference and distress for the employee?

   
   

3. External Scrutiny: If all LINE messages, emails, and meeting recordings were handed to external investigators today, could I confidently prove this was solving an operational problem—rather than punishing, humiliating, or controlling an individual?

   
   

Under the new workplace bullying regime, effective leadership does not mean abdicating managerial authority. It means reassuring your team: You can hold me accountable to high standards of work, but having power over my performance reviews, promotions, transfers, and bonuses does not give you license to violate my dignity and private life.

Attorney Chen Yeh-hsin's Key Takeaway

A "sense of boundaries" will become an indispensable managerial competency under the new legal framework.

What organizations must teach their managers goes beyond simply memorizing "what words not to say." It requires instilling an operational mindset:

• Manage work, not character.

  
  

• Demand performance, do not compromise human dignity.

  
  

• Support employees, do not violate personal privacy.

  
  

• Exercise authority, do not abuse power.

  
  

Lawful and reasonable management means knowing you possess authority, yet knowing precisely at which boundary to stop.

HR teams should review the management scenarios in their leadership training modules this week: If we were to place these emails, LINE messages, performance appraisal notes, and meeting transcripts before an external investigation committee, could our managers clearly prove they were managing work—or have they already crossed the line into human dignity and personal privacy?