Workplace bullying is a particularly insidious form of counterproductive workplace behavior with an increasing research stream developing in the last two decades (Branch et al. 2013; Hershcovis 2011; Neall and Tuckey 2014). The persistent abuse aimed at targets of workplace bullying results in a hostile work environment for all stakeholders of the organization. Estimates for exposure to bullying in American workplaces vary considerably, with reports of approximately 15% up to nearly 50% of workers experiencing bullying either directly or indirectly (Keashly and Jagatic 2011; Namie 2016) with annual costs estimated at over $40 billion including sick leave, absenteeism, lost productivity, and decreased employee morale (Indvik and Johnson 2012). Bullying is not a uniquely American phenomenon and researchers across the globe have found that between 10% and 18% of workers report exposure to this destructive behavior (Nielsen and Einarsen 2012; Zapf et al. 2011). The general conclusion can be drawn that workplace bullying is not an insignificant fact of work life and one that organizations are wise to address promptly and effectively. Bullying is not defined as a one-time conflict or flare-up between individuals. Rather, it is a prolonged course of escalating torment that may be inflicted by an employee’s supervisor, subordinates, or peers (Einarsen 2000). Further, the target is seen to be in a less-powerful position (either formally or informally) than the bully within the work unit, rendering him or her unable to compel the bully to stop the abuse. Many targets respond to bullying by quitting their jobs in order to avoid further abuse (Brown n.d.). Bullying can manifest in several forms. In general, researchers have found that bullying includes actions related to the work or task, actions targeting personal or psychosocial elements, and actions comprising physically threatening behaviors (Bartlett and Bartlett 2011; Dick 2010). Typical bullying behaviors include being given unrealistic performance targets or meaningless tasks, ignoring, socially isolating, or belittling the victim, and public humiliation. The typical course of a bullying campaign involves multiple forms of abuse over an extended period (typically six months or longer) (Dick 2010; Rayner and Keashly 2005; Zapf et al. 1996). The etiology of workplace bullying is complicated, involving both individual (target and bully) and environmental (organizational culture, structure, and leadership) factors (Agervold 2009; Bowling and Beehr 2006; Einarsen 2000; Salin 2003). A majority of the research on individual factors has focused on targets of bullying with a limited study of perpetrators. An archetypal profile of bullied targets has not been discovered although numerous attributes of the target have been investigated. For example, negative affectivity (Duffy et al. 2002), submissiveness (Aquino 2000), organizational status (Hoel and Salin 2003), and personality (Glaso et al. 2012) have all been shown to influence the likelihood of becoming a target. Much of what is Bknown^ about perpetrators of bullying has been gleaned from second-hand reports from targets or witnesses to bullying (Brotheridge 2013; Parkins et al. 2006).