Online abuse posing significant risk to employers, workers

Business leaders and human resources professionals need to see online abuse as a serious workplace risk, according to one expert.

Online abuse is pushing women out of public‑facing roles and undermining mental health, productivity and career progression, leadership scholar Associate Professor Suze Wilson (no relation to this writer) says in an interview with Human Resources Director.

Wilson – whose research focuses on women in politics, journalism and academia – says there is “a fairly significant body of evidence” that gendered and racialised online abuse is “psychologically very harmful” when it targets core aspects of a person’s identity. Studies point to anxiety, difficulty sleeping, fear, stress, depression, feeling unsafe and, in some cases, being genuinely unsafe as common consequences.

Large‑scale studies in journalism show women are more likely than men to experience not only online attacks but also in‑person abuse and threats, she notes. Abuse “can carry over from online activity into real‑world activity”, Wilson says, making it “incredibly harmful” and affecting “the totality of people’s daily lives”, including whether they feel safe going about their work.

Her interviews with women in public‑facing roles reveal severe impacts in some cases, including panic attacks, leaving their homes and going into hiding, and installing security measures at their residences in response to threats linked to their work.

Previously, a study at the University of York warned that the problem has become an occupational hazard of professional life in politics, journalism, academia and policing.

Specifically, women in senior positions in public-facing roles face persistent online harassment and defamation, often without adequate organisational support, according to the study conducted by criminologist Dr. Susan Watson.

HR professionals have a responsibility to address online abuse affecting workers, according to an expert. 

Impact in productivity, career path

Although clear quantitative measures of productivity loss are limited, Wilson says existing evidence on mental health and performance is sufficient for employers to draw conclusions.

“We generally know when people are at a heightened level of emotion – suffering from anxiety, suffering from depression, that sort of thing – it’s much harder for them to focus on doing their work and on being productive,” she says.

The longer‑term career effects are also significant. Wilson says some workers are “basically removing themselves from environments where they’re exposed to this kind of stuff”, and in politics and media “journalists are getting out of journalism” because of online abuse. She notes that “women are more likely to self‑censor what they do say online” and that many step back or “completely step out of environments that they are experiencing repeatedly as being really hostile and unsafe”.

Not all workers respond by leaving; some manage to “compartmentalise or just ignore that stuff and continue on with their work”. However, Wilson warns that the cumulative effect of abuse on women’s participation in public‑facing professions is a concern for employers, particularly from a diversity and talent‑retention perspective.

Amid the return-to-office movement, employers are facing a disturbing surge in psychological injury claims linked to bullying and harassment, with new data suggesting the problem is now deeply embedded in workplace culture rather than confined to “a few bad apples”.

‘Just log off’ is not a solution

Wilson says many organisational responses to online abuse remain inadequate, especially when managers and HR advise targets to step away from online platforms or minimise the problem as “just online”. She argues that such reactions ignore how deeply work and technology are now intertwined.

“So much of our lived experience now is filtered through technology,” she says. “We are heavily reliant on it and we can’t simply separate ourselves from it now.” For many workers – particularly in media, politics and academia – “people’s career prospects are also shaped by the fact that they have developed an online following and an online presence that is critical to their career success”.

“So just telling people to switch it off and walk away or ‘it’s just online, it’s not real’ trivialises their experience of harm,” she says. Instead, Wilson says employers must “first and foremost, take it seriously” when an employee reports abuse linked to their work.

While much of the abuse originates outside the organisation and may be difficult to stop at source, Wilson says HR and leadership still have clear responsibilities. “What I think employers have to focus on is: what are the things that we can do to mitigate and support the employees that are being subjected to this?” she says.

Keeping online abuse targets in control

Wilson recommends working closely with the targeted employee and ensuring they remain the decision‑maker wherever possible. She is critical of employer offers to monitor a target’s inbox, noting that some women did not trust their employer seeing all their messages and also wanted to monitor patterns themselves.

They “recognise the names [and] the email addresses of who’s coming at them” and want to know whether “this person [is] escalating the level of threat”, Wilson says. She describes scenarios where a sender who previously emailed abusive messages once every six months begins sending threats monthly, then weekly, then daily, including threats to kill children. Such changes indicate a “highly motivated, highly fixated attacker” whose messages must be treated more seriously than a random, one‑off communication.

In these cases, Wilson says employers should support workers in reporting to police, platforms or regulators, but only in line with what the person being targeted wants. She stresses the importance of agency: working with the “target” – a term she uses in preference to “victim” – “around what they would like to do” is central to helping them regain a sense of control.

Practical measures for HR

Wilson also outlines a range of practical measures organisations can consider when threats escalate. On the digital security side, employers can help ensure strong passwords and better account security and, where possible, assist employees to remove home addresses from public records to reduce the risk of doxxing – or publishing private or identifying information.

Physical security options may include:

• installing security cameras at a worker’s home

• arranging training in personal safety and threat awareness

• or, in extreme cases, providing a bodyguard for public appearances.

Legal support is another area where Wilson believes employers should step up. “If there is a scope for legal action, offering to fund that could make a huge difference,” she says. “If an employee is being defamed as part of their work, it shouldn’t be up to them to try and find the funds to defend their name – their employer should… provide support.”

Access to professional counselling is also important, she adds, to help employees develop strategies for coping with “moments of really high stress”.

There is a disconnect between how protected employees feel at work and the reality of the misconduct they witness and experience, according to a previous report.

Associate Professor Suze Wilson will be presenting her research at the upcoming Whiria Ngā Kaha Workplace Inclusion Aotearoa conference taking place in Auckland on May 5 and 6. She and Dr. Siouxsie Wiles will discuss how online hostility directly impacts women’s professional lives and leadership pathways in their session The real-world impact of online abuse targeting women leaders. The Inside the Glass Cage exhibition will also be on display at the conference.