Workplace bullying is commonly manifested through inappropriate actions, language, or activities that lead others to experience psychological submission or withdrawal from the workplace (Khalid et al., 2021). Such behaviors typically occur within organizational settings, where one or more individuals engage in actions directed toward a targeted person over a prolonged period and in a repetitive manner. Due to its complex and cumulative nature, workplace bullying often causes victims to perceive severe power imbalances and may even lead individuals to develop self-doubt regarding their professional competence and career identity (Branch et al., 2013; Khalid et al., 2021). Baillien et al. (2009) proposed the three-way model of workplace bullying, suggesting that bullying-related behaviors may develop through three primary pathways: as outcomes of interpersonal conflict, as responses to work-related problems, or as consequences of destructive organizational cultures. Swedish psychologist Heinz Leymann was among the first scholars to systematically investigate workplace bullying. His research demonstrated that when bullying behaviors occur frequently and accumulate over time, they can result in a range of adverse consequences for individuals, including physical, psychological, emotional, and social harm (Moayed et al., 2006). de Wet and Jacobs (2017) noted that within educational contexts, teachers may become targets of bullying by colleagues, supervisors, parents, and even students. Evidence from South Africa further confirms that students can also act as perpetrators of bullying against teachers (Mangena and Matlala, 2023). Higher education institutions are characterized by relatively stable organizational structures, rigid institutional arrangements, and highly competitive environments, all of which create conditions conducive to the emergence of workplace bullying (Steinman, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2010; Bleiklie et al., 2016; Meyer, 2025). In addition, limited opportunities for promotion, combined with competitive funding systems and performance-based management mechanisms, contribute to heightened pressure among academic staff (Heffernan and Bosetti, 2021). In recent years, scholars have examined the conditions under which workplace bullying occurs from multiple perspectives. Existing research highlights the important roles played by leadership styles and individual differences in the development of bullying behaviors (Ciby and Raya, 2014; Hutchinson et al., 2010; Hoel et al., 2010). Other studies have systematically analyzed the negative consequences of workplace bullying for individuals, including psychological and physical health problems, emotional exhaustion, and occupational burnout (Mościcka-Teske et al., 2014; Nielsen et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2021; Togo et al., 2019). However, the majority of research on workplace bullying has focused primarily on causal relationships, structural characteristics, and measurement frameworks, while paying comparatively limited attention to the dynamic processes through which workplace bullying emerges and is sustained within specific organizational contexts (León-Pérez et al., 2019; Samnani, 2013).

Teachers in Chinese private universities constitute an important segment of the national higher education system. Unlike their counterparts in public universities, their employment, remuneration, and management mechanisms exhibit distinct characteristics and are more strongly shaped by market-oriented principles (Cao, 2024; Lin and Wang, 2024). Compared with public university faculty, teachers in private universities commonly face lower salary levels and less stable employment security (Aslam et al., 2025; Goldstene, 2022). A survey-based analysis of occupational stress among university teachers in China indicated substantial disparities between private and public university faculty in terms of income, social welfare, academic rank evaluation, and social status (Zhang, 2015). Through interview-based research conducted in Chinese private universities, Zhang (2016) identified 17 factors influencing the psychological health of private university teachers, including interpersonal relationships, working environments, and welfare conditions. Social recognition has also been identified as a key factor shaping the professional experiences of private university teachers. Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, some studies have explored dimensions such as basic survival needs, career development, and social recognition among private university faculty. These studies suggest that, alongside concerns about material security and professional advancement, teachers place strong value on recognition from both their institutions and broader society (Luan, 2025). However, within highly performance-driven and power-asymmetric working environments characteristic of many private universities, teachers’ professional value and labor contributions are often difficult to secure stable and consistent affirmation (Zhang, 2015). At the same time, performance evaluation occupies a central position within the management systems of Chinese private universities (Chang, 2019). When negative evaluations, exclusionary interactions, or persistent forms of institutional pressure are present, teachers’ sense of social recognition is easily undermined. This not only weakens their professional self-esteem but also creates psychological and situational conditions that facilitate the emergence and persistence of workplace bullying. The performance evaluation system for teachers in Chinese private universities typically encompasses core dimensions such as teaching, research, social service, and professional ethics. However, compared with public universities, performance management in private universities places greater emphasis on application-oriented outcomes, market adaptability, and institutional efficiency. This performance orientation has given rise to several persistent problems in practice (Liu et al., 2024; Qingbo, 2024). Existing studies indicate that the determination of performance-based remuneration is often strongly influenced by students’ examination results, reflecting an accountability logic centered on test-based outcomes (Long and Fan, 2024). At the same time, in practical implementation, teachers from different disciplines, academic ranks, and with varying teaching and administrative responsibilities are frequently evaluated using standardized and uniform criteria, with limited consideration of individual developmental goals and professional differences (Aliya and Jiang, 2024). In addition, the performance evaluation process is often characterized by a lack of transparency, with teachers having insufficient access to information, limited opportunities for participation, and restricted channels for appeal. These conditions further undermine the perceived fairness and legitimacy of performance evaluation systems in private universities (Zhang, 2024). To clarify how performance evaluation operates as a multi-layered governance mechanism in Chinese private universities, Figure 1 illustrates the key administrative actors involved in teacher evaluation and the main performance indicators through which control is exercised.

Globally, reports on the prevalence of workplace bullying are widespread. In the United States, 46.8% of workers reported having experienced workplace bullying (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). In Europe, approximately 5%–10% of employees reported similar experiences (Einarsen et al., 2020), while in South Korea, 25.3% of employees in the education sector reported exposure to workplace bullying (Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training, 2015). In mainland China, systematic data focusing specifically on university teachers remains limited. Nevertheless, existing evidence suggests that workplace bullying is not uncommon. For example, 41% of nurses in mainland China reported experiencing workplace bullying (Huang, 2021), while the prevalence among employees in Hong Kong reached 58.9% (Ng and Chan, 2021). These findings indicate that workplace bullying exists across occupational groups within the Chinese context. Notably, Chinese society places strong emphasis on collectivism and social harmony. Within this cultural framework, teachers who experience workplace bullying may choose to endure mistreatment to preserve group harmony. As collectivism prioritizes group needs over individual interests, victims may respond to bullying through silence in an effort to maintain balance and cohesion. Consequently, resistance to workplace bullying becomes more complex and constrained within such cultural contexts (Nesdale and Naito, 2005; Jacobson et al., 2013; Smith and Robinson, 2019).

Taken together, prior research has offered valuable insights into workplace bullying in educational and organizational settings to understand workplace bullying in educational and organizational contexts by examining its definitions, prevalence, individual consequences, and associated leadership and organizational factors. However, much of the existing literature remains fragmented and predominantly variable-oriented, focusing on isolated risk factors or outcomes rather than the dynamic processes through which workplace bullying emerges and is sustained over time. In particular, limited attention has been paid to how organizational governance arrangements, performance evaluation systems, and power relations interact in specific institutional contexts, such as Chinese private universities, to normalize and reproduce bullying practices. Moreover, while cultural explanations such as collectivism and silence have been discussed, they are rarely integrated into a process-based analysis of organizational mechanisms. To address these gaps, the present study adopts a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the generation and maintenance of workplace bullying among teachers in Chinese private universities, intending to develop a context-sensitive, process-oriented explanatory model. Building on this perspective, the present study is guided by the following research questions, which focus on the processes through which workplace bullying is generated, maintained, and responded to within the organizational context of Chinese private universities:

Q1: Within the context of Chinese private universities, how does workplace bullying among teachers emerge?

Q2: Through routine organizational processes, what factors enable workplace bullying against teachers to persist and become normalized?

Q3: Under these conditions, how do teachers situated within different configurations of resources and vulnerabilities assess risks and develop differentiated coping strategies?

This study aims to explore the processes through which workplace bullying among teachers in Chinese private universities is generated and sustained, as well as the interpretive meanings attached to these processes. Accordingly, a Constructivist Grounded Theory approach was adopted as the primary research methodology (Corbin and Strauss, 2014; Birks and Mills, 2022; Goulding, 2005). This approach emphasizes that theory is not predetermined but is progressively constructed through continuous analysis of empirical data generated via interactions between the researcher and participants (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin and Strauss, 2014; Birks and Mills, 2022). The research findings are thus understood as co-constructed products shaped by both researcher interpretation and participants’ lived experiences (Akkaya, 2023). From an analytical perspective, this methodological orientation enables the researcher to ground analysis in participants’ actual experiences while avoiding the uncritical application of pre-existing theoretical models, thereby allowing a more nuanced understanding of participants’ action logics and processes of meaning-making (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). In terms of research design, this study employed long-term fieldwork combined with open-ended, in-depth interviews. From March to September 2025, the researcher conducted 6 months of continuous fieldwork in two Chinese private universities. Both institutions were located within the same city but functioned as decentralized campuses affiliated with different central administrative headquarters. Each campus operated with its own independent management personnel and administrative teams. Before entering the field, the researcher obtained oral consent from the management of both universities. At the request of institutional administrators, the names of the universities were anonymized and are not disclosed in this study. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained before data collection.

To ensure alignment between data collection and the research objectives, the interview protocol was explicitly designed to address the three research questions of this study. First, participants were invited to describe their everyday work experiences and organizational interactions to explore how workplace bullying emerges within the context of Chinese private universities. Second, interview questions focused on routine managerial practices, evaluation mechanisms, and informal norms to examine how bullying behaviors persist and become normalized in daily organizational operations. Third, participants were asked to reflect on their perceived resources, vulnerabilities, and decision-making processes, which enabled an analysis of how teachers assess risks and develop differentiated coping strategies under varying conditions. In this way, the interview data provided rich empirical material directly aligned with each research question.

During the fieldwork phase, the researcher entered two universities and gradually became familiar with the research setting by engaging in daily observation, informal communication, and participation in routine institutional activities. Face-to-face, in-depth interviews were conducted with participants to systematically collect experiences and understandings of workplace bullying among teachers from multiple perspectives (Weiss, 1995; Silverman, 2021). The sample size was not predetermined before data collection. Participants were recruited iteratively, and data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached (Corbin and Strauss, 2014; Birks and Mills, 2022). Saturation was considered achieved when additional interviews no longer generated new conceptual categories or substantive insights relevant to the research questions. The final sample size reflects this process of theoretical saturation rather than a fixed numerical target. All interviews were conducted voluntarily. Before each interview, participants were informed of the research purpose, interview content, and the principles of anonymity and confidentiality. With participants’ consent, interviews were audio-recorded, and all identifiable personal and institutional information was anonymized during transcription to ensure research ethics and protect participants’ privacy. All data were used solely for academic research purposes (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Ligita et al., 2020). By integrating field observation records with interview materials, this study seeks to reconstruct the processes through which workplace bullying occurs and operates within concrete organizational contexts and to gradually develop an interpretive theoretical framework through constant comparative analysis (Corbin and Strauss, 2014; Goulding, 2005). Throughout the fieldwork period, the researcher conducted ongoing observations and carried out face-to-face in-depth interviews lasting approximately 50–60 min with participants during non-working hours (Charmaz, 2014). Detailed information about the study participants is presented in Table 1.

This study adopts a qualitative, process-oriented design to develop an in-depth understanding of how workplace bullying among teachers emerges within the privatized governance structures characteristic of Chinese private universities. To capture shared organizational features rather than institutional differences, the researcher deliberately selected two private universities with similar organizational types and governance arrangements. Prolonged fieldwork and in-depth interviews were employed to generate empirically rich and analytically meaningful data. During the initial stage of data collection, the researcher spent approximately 1 month in each university engaging in classroom observations, attending institutional meetings, and accompanying teachers in student management activities. This phase was intended to familiarize the researcher with the organizational environment and everyday practices of the institutions. In the process of identifying participants, the researcher sought teachers who had recurrent experiences of, or had disclosed, negative social behaviors commonly associated with workplace bullying, including both verbal and non-verbal forms. These experiences constituted the primary criterion for participant inclusion in the study. The interviews followed a semi-structured format guided by a set of core thematic topics. These topics included participants’ everyday work experiences, perceived organizational expectations, experiences of interpersonal conflict or negative social interactions, evaluation and management practices, and individual responses to workplace pressures. The same core interview topics were used across different participant groups to ensure analytical comparability. However, the wording and sequencing of follow-up questions were flexibly adjusted according to participants’ roles and experiences, allowing role-specific perspectives to be explored while maintaining a shared thematic structure.

The subsequent stage of data collection involved conducting in-depth interviews. Before data recording, the researcher informed participants that all data would be treated confidentially and obtained their informed consent. Interviews were closely aligned with the research questions. In total, the study included 20 teachers (9 male and 11 female), two members of university leadership, four administrative staff members, and two student focus groups comprising a total of eight students. Student focus group data provided a supplementary lens through which teachers’ accounts of organizational practices could be situated within everyday classroom experiences. Data analysis followed the grounded theory procedures proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1998), including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently, with emerging analytical insights continuously informing subsequent interviews and field observations in accordance with the principle of constant comparative analysis. Interviews were not treated as one-time events; rather, interview questions and focal points were iteratively refined based on preliminary analytical findings and field notes, allowing emerging categories to be developed and theoretical understanding to be progressively deepened throughout the research process.

Triangulation is a key qualitative research strategy aimed at enhancing the credibility and robustness of research findings through the integration of multiple independent methods or data sources (Carter et al., 2017). Grounded in epistemological pluralism, triangulation acknowledges the limitations of single perspectives and strengthens analytical interpretations through systematic comparison across different sources of evidence (Wang et al., 2024). To enhance the trustworthiness of the qualitative findings and the rigor of the analytical process, multiple forms of triangulation were incorporated during data analysis. Data source triangulation was achieved by comparing interview materials from participants occupying different roles, including teachers, students, administrative staff, and institutional leaders, allowing for a multi-angled understanding of workplace bullying in Chinese private universities. Method triangulation was implemented through the combined use of in-depth interviews, participant observation, and field diaries, enabling the researcher to cross-validate emerging interpretations across different forms of qualitative material. Throughout the analytical process, the researcher engaged in continuous reflexive examination of emerging core categories and theoretical interpretations, making iterative revisions to minimize personal bias. In addition, expert consultation was incorporated as a form of investigator triangulation, whereby scholars with expertise in teacher-related research were invited to review the analytical process and interpretive framework. The findings were not confined to descriptive accounts; instead, they were situated within broader theoretical discussions on workplace bullying and institutional governance, allowing sustained analytical dialogue with existing literature. Through these procedures, the study strengthened the internal consistency and interpretive credibility of its findings (Guion et al., 2011). To enhance analytical transparency, Table 2 presents an illustrative example of the coding process, demonstrating how interview data were analytically developed into core categories.

Interview data indicate that teachers in Chinese private universities commonly interpret workplace bullying as embedded within an evaluation and promotion system dominated by administrative power. Although institutional policies formally emphasize performance assessment and teaching achievements, evaluation and promotion processes in practice lack stable and transparent criteria and are instead highly dependent on managerial discretion and power allocation. Multiple participants reported investing substantial time and effort in teaching or competition-related projects and achieving tangible outcomes yet finding that their contributions were redefined or transferred during award selection, authorship attribution, or reward applications. These decisions were typically made without clear explanations, and individual teachers were neither involved in nor able to question the decision-making process. As one teacher explained:

Within this evaluation system, assessment mechanisms were gradually perceived by teachers not as tools to support professional development, but as means of control. Some participants noted that in matters such as outcome distribution, project collaboration, or administrative arrangements, displays of compliance and cooperation were often expected, as these directly affected annual evaluations and future development opportunities. When teachers attempted to refuse arrangements they considered unreasonable or sought to defend their own rights, references to evaluation standards, promotion opportunities, or other potential constraints frequently emerged as implicit forms of pressure. Through such experiences, teachers came to realize that evaluation and promotion processes did not simply reflect teaching competence or academic contribution; rather, they functioned as instruments through which work outcomes were defined and redistributed within everyday organizational practices. Participants further reported that existing complaint or feedback mechanisms within universities rarely functioned effectively in practice. Teachers who attempted to voice concerns through formal or informal channels often encountered delayed responses, ambiguous handling, or no resolution at all, and in some cases found themselves further marginalized. Over time, prolonged exposure to power-imbalanced evaluation environments led teachers to adjust their behavioral strategies, increasingly adopting silence and avoidance as lower-risk responses. In this sense, an evaluation and promotion system dominated by administrative power has shaped the professional conditions of teachers in private universities and provided an institutional foundation for the persistence of workplace bullying.

The data further reveal that within the organizational operations of private universities, teachers commonly experience a governance logic centered on personal relationships. This logic differs markedly from the “rule-oriented” framework presented in formal institutional regulations. In practice, decision-making processes within universities often unfold through informal relational networks, and whether a teacher is regarded as an ‘insider’ plays a critical role in resource allocation, position assignments, and access to development opportunities. Professional competence and work commitment are not the sole or primary criteria; rather, teachers’ organizational standing is largely shaped by their position within these relational networks. Multiple participants noted the widespread presence of clear yet unspoken ‘alignment’ structures within their institutions. Following changes in leadership or internal power reconfigurations, existing relational arrangements are often reshaped accordingly. Teachers who fail to enter newly formed networks on time may find themselves gradually marginalized. As one teacher described following a leadership transition:

Under such conditions, teachers’ understanding of the organizational environment is no longer grounded in formal rules or institutional procedures but instead revolves around relational judgments such as who to follow and who can be relied on. This form of relational governance also permeates everyday work practices and interactions among colleagues. Some teachers reported that even when they invested considerable effort in teaching or project work, failure to engage in relationship maintenance meant that they were excluded from promotion-related decisions. Conversely, teachers who maintained close ties with management were more likely to gain advancement opportunities, even when their professional performance was not particularly strong. Over time, these experiences reinforced a shared organizational logic in which relationships were perceived as taking precedence over competence, and alignment became a key strategy for safeguarding one’s professional security.

In this process, relational governance and alignment culture gradually became normalized aspects of everyday organizational life. Teachers adjusted their behaviors to adapt to these unwritten rules by withdrawing from active engagement, reducing expressions of dissent, or maintaining a neutral stance to minimize risk. Within such environments, relational networks reshaped patterns of interaction among teachers and, in subtle ways, fostered conditions conducive to workplace bullying. Practices of exclusion, neglect, and unequal treatment thus came to be embedded within everyday organizational routines and normalized as part of ordinary institutional functioning. In contrast, some administrators described personnel arrangements as necessary for organizational stability, emphasizing efficiency and trust rather than alignment.

Over prolonged exposure to power-imbalanced organizational environments, teachers gradually developed coping patterns characterized by silence and compliance. Such silence did not signal acceptance of unfair conditions but rather reflected choices made after careful consideration of potential costs and risks. Multiple participants noted that even when faced with unreasonable arrangements or involuntary position changes, voicing opposition could expose them to ongoing and unpredictable risks. Under these circumstances, silence and acquiescence were perceived as safer strategies. Some teachers described initial attempts to communicate and express their concerns, only to become increasingly aware of the constraints and awkwardness of their position. One teacher recalled:

As such experiences were repeatedly shared and circulated among teachers, silence gradually shifted from an individual response to an implicit organizational norm. When forced compliance became intertwined with everyday pressures, resistance appeared increasingly unattainable. Interviewees frequently referred to family responsibilities, financial burdens, and uncertainty in the broader employment environment, which limited their ability to bear the risks associated with confrontation. When resignation, formal complaints, or open resistance were perceived as high-cost or unfeasible options, teachers were more inclined to maintain the status quo by accepting arrangements, lowering expectations, or enduring temporarily. As one participant stated:

An administrative staff member similarly noted that teachers rarely raised objections openly, explaining that.

Over time, silence and compliance acquired structural characteristics. They were no longer merely matters of individual personality or attitude but became reinforced patterns of behavior shaped by specific institutional arrangements and power relations. Through daily interactions, teachers learned which topics could be discussed and which behaviors should be avoided. Silence and compliance thus extended beyond individual coping strategies; they subtly weakened checks on unfair practices and enabled workplace bullying to persist and stabilize in forms marked by low visibility and minimal overt conflict.

Interview data indicate that gender was rarely discussed explicitly within private university settings, yet it continued to operate in subtle ways through evaluation practices, task allocation, and access to development opportunities. Several female teachers noted that rather than overt gender discrimination, gender differences were more often embedded implicitly in everyday management practices and exerted tangible influence at critical moments in their career trajectories. Some participants pointed out that being unmarried or not yet having children was often treated as an unspoken assumption affecting perceptions of their professional commitment and stability. In decisions related to position assignments, project allocation, or promotion opportunities, such factors were seldom stated openly but frequently served as important reference points in managerial judgments. As one female teacher explained:

Arrangements framed as “care” or “understanding” gradually pushed female teachers away from core responsibilities without any explicit denial. In contrast, male teachers were generally perceived as having smoother career trajectories within the institution. Some participants observed that men were more readily entrusted with additional administrative duties, key positions, or regarded as potential candidates for further development, making it easier for them to gain trust and opportunities. These gendered differences were not always articulated through formal rules but were continually reinforced through labeling and stereotypes in everyday interactions. Several female teachers reported that when expressing stress, emotional strain, or perceptions of unfair treatment, they were more likely to be labeled as overly emotional or lacking resilience. Prolonged exposure to such environments led some teachers to question their own competence and, in some cases, to lower their professional expectations proactively.

Gendered oppression thus operated in a low-visibility manner. Rather than manifesting through isolated incidents or overt confrontation, it unfolded through a series of seemingly reasonable, fragmented, yet cumulative practices that gradually constrained women’s professional space. Gender not only shaped teachers’ positions within organizational environments but also intensified their vulnerability when confronting unfair conditions, thereby providing important structural conditions for the emergence and persistence of workplace bullying.

Interview data show that with the increasing digitalization and refinement of management practices, technological tools have gradually been incorporated into teachers’ everyday work management. Teaching activities are no longer confined to the classroom itself but are increasingly folded into evaluation systems. Indicators such as students’ head-up rates during class, surveillance footage, classroom discipline, and student behavioral metrics have become key reference points for assessing teachers’ work and primary channels through which management intervenes in the teaching process. Several participants noted that classroom surveillance-based evaluations were implemented in their schools, and that such monitoring was often concentrated on specific teachers. One administrative staff member reported being frequently instructed to review classroom surveillance footage of particular teachers, record students’ head-up rates or mobile phone use, and use these observations as part of performance assessments. For teachers, this persistent sense of being “watched” transformed teaching from a relatively autonomous professional activity into a task-oriented one oriented toward inspection and compliance. During student focus group interviews, students also observed that school leaders tended to repeatedly check the classes of certain teachers. From the perspective of administrative staff, such monitoring was described as a routine management requirement rather than a targeted intervention. While other teachers’ classes were rarely monitored or formally observed. One teacher described this experience as follows:

Within such environments, teachers were required to invest substantial additional effort in tasks not directly related to teaching itself, including repeatedly completing forms and preparing materials for inspection. Prolonged exposure to technologized management and high-frequency surveillance gradually undermined teachers’ emotional resources, reducing their capacity to resist managerial demands or challenge unfair practices. Many participants described a growing sense of depletion that made sustained vigilance and self-protection increasingly difficult. Some teachers reported that their primary concern gradually shifted from professional engagement to risk avoidance, as minimizing exposure became a practical survival strategy. As one teacher admitted:

In this process, technological forms of control—such as classroom surveillance—did not generate pressure through overt conflict or direct accusations. Instead, their impact was amplified through continuous, fragmented, and difficult-to-refuse managerial demands. Emotional exhaustion thus emerged as a key outcome, weakening teachers’ engagement with their work and reinforcing organizational conditions in which workplace bullying could persist with low visibility and minimal resistance.

The working conditions of teachers in private universities are shaped not only by formal institutional arrangements and management practices but also by everyday interactions with colleagues. Several teachers reported that, even in the absence of overt conflict, forms of exclusion often emerged in subtle ways. These included being left out of informal communication, not being informed about important meetings, or gradually being overlooked in task allocation. Although such experiences were often concealed, their cumulative effects had a significant impact on teachers’ work experiences over time. Some participants described noticeable changes in collegial relationships after being labeled as not fitting in or strange within the organizational environment. As one teacher recalled:

From an organizational perspective, such exclusionary practices were rarely framed as intentional actions, but rather emerged through routine arrangements and informal communication patterns. Rather than manifesting through confrontation, these changes unfolded through relational distancing, leading teachers to gradually recognize their marginal position within the group. Social exclusion was also reflected in evaluative processes. Multiple teachers pointed out that negative feedback in teaching evaluations or routine assessments was not always based solely on instructional performance but was closely tied to interpersonal relationships. Over prolonged periods of being ignored or excluded, some teachers began to experience uncertainty about their professional roles. Interview data indicated that certain teachers gradually reduced their investment in teaching and no longer held expectations regarding the institution’s development. As one participant expressed:

This experience illustrates that professional identity is not stripped away in a single moment but is progressively eroded through ongoing exclusion and devaluation. Social exclusion thus affected not only teachers’ daily work but also their sense of professional identity. When teachers were no longer recognized as members of a professional community, their sense of meaning and value attached to teaching diminished. Under such conditions, teachers found it increasingly difficult to respond to unfair treatment. Through this gradual erosion of professional identity, workplace bullying became embedded in everyday organizational life rather than recognized as a distinct problem.

Based on the interview data, this category differs from the previously discussed patterns of silence and compliance by focusing on why teachers find it difficult to exit their situations. Although some teachers expressed strong dissatisfaction or even frustration with their working conditions, relatively few ultimately chose to leave private universities. Instead, most remained in a prolonged state of wanting to leave but being unable to do so. This state of staying was not simply a matter of personal choice but rather the result of the intertwined effects of multiple practical constraints and professional identity. Several participants noted that, within the local social context, the teaching profession carries a certain symbolic value associated with stability, respectability, and social status. Even when their work experiences had been significantly undermined, giving up the identity of “teacher” was perceived as a decision involving high social costs. As one teacher explained:

Such social expectations functioned as an external normative pressure, generating hesitation when teachers considered leaving. At the same time, perceptions of the external labor market further constrained their choices. Many participants reported that private universities of a similar type shared highly comparable management models and employment logics, making departure unlikely to bring meaningful improvement. As one teacher candidly stated, changing schools would probably mean the same system all over again. Leaving was therefore no longer viewed as a realistic solution. Some teachers also noted that colleagues who experienced exclusion but possessed stronger family financial resources were less affected by workplace bullying, highlighting disparities in vulnerability.

Professional identity attachment was also reflected in teachers’ investment in their own professional trajectories. Years of teaching experience, relationships established with students, and emotional ties to educational work made it difficult for some teachers to disengage fully from their existing roles. Even when experiencing bullying, they tended to interpret the situation as ‘temporary’ or ‘personal’ and thus refrained from making drastic decisions. Under these conditions, the combined effects of professional identity attachment and structural entrapment anchored teachers within their current organizational environments. The previously described power-dominated evaluation systems, relational governance, technological control, and social exclusion did not directly force teachers to exit. Instead, they gradually compressed the range of available choices, rendering “staying and enduring” the least costly option. As a result, workplace bullying no longer appeared merely as isolated incidents but was transformed, through sustained entrapment, into a normalized condition of everyday work that could be endured but was structurally difficult to escape.

Drawing on the seven interrelated categories identified above, this study integrates an explanatory theoretical model that accounts for the emergence and persistence of workplace bullying among teachers in Chinese private universities. The model is presented in Figure 2.

The model illustrates that the governance environment shaping teachers’ experiences in Chinese private universities originates from power-dominated evaluation and promotion mechanisms, which are enacted through relational governance and alignment culture. Technologized management practices and gendered forms of oppression are further embedded in everyday work processes, continuously narrowing teachers’ space for professional autonomy. Within this organizational context, teachers gradually develop coping strategies characterized by silence and compliance as risk-minimizing responses. Prolonged exposure to such conditions is accompanied by social exclusion and the gradual erosion of professional identity, which weakens teachers’ ability to respond to unfair treatment and destabilizes their sense of professional self. At the same time, emotional attachment to the teaching role, social expectations, and constraints in the external labor market limit teachers’ capacity to exit the organization, giving rise to professional identity attachment and structural entrapment. The model suggests that workplace bullying among teachers in Chinese private universities is not triggered by isolated incidents or individual traits but is progressively produced through the interaction of institutional arrangements, relational dynamics, and individual coping strategies, and is sustained over time within conditions of structural entrapment.