For organisations with people in public-facing roles, hostility from the public is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Abuse, threats and intimidation are being reported across sectors and professions, both in person and online. Behind the statistics are employees having to navigate the impact of these experiences as part of their working lives.
The wider forces contributing to public hostility are complex, and no organisation can address them alone. But employers have a clear responsibility for the working environment they create around people who are exposed to it – from reducing and managing risk, to setting boundaries, responding when incidents occur and ensuring employees feel safe, supported and valued.
This article explores what that responsibility looks like in practice and where resilience can fit, without becoming tolerance.
Taking public hostility seriously
Recent research into the experiences of more than 500 MPs’ staff provides a stark example. Seventy-eight per cent reported experiencing threatening calls or communications, while 30% said they frequently, very frequently or always feared for their own or colleagues’ safety. Staff reported exposure to verbal abuse, racist and sexist language, stalking, threats and physical violence. Greater exposure across the safeguarding risks examined was associated with increased psychological distress.
The problem extends well beyond politics. Usdaw’s latest Freedom from Fear survey of nearly 9,000 retail workers found that 78% had experienced verbal abuse, 54% threats and 11% assault during the previous year.
These figures inevitably sit within a wider social context. Economic pressures, increasing polarisation, declining trust and the often-hostile nature of public and online discourse may all form part of the backdrop. These wider influences matter: they shape the environments in which public-facing employees are working, and add to the importance of considering how people exposed to hostility are protected and supported.
One comment in the MPs’ staff research is particularly striking. A respondent recalled being told that abuse should be expected and that staff needed to “grow a thick skin”. Few organisations would consciously take that position. But where hostility becomes frequent, there is a risk that unacceptable behaviour gradually becomes normalised as simply something that comes with a public-facing role.
Reducing risk and setting clear boundaries
A clear organisational position on public hostility is an important starting point. Employees need to understand what behaviour is considered unacceptable, what protections are available to them and what they are empowered to do when boundaries are crossed.
Some useful questions for organisations to consider include:
- Boundaries: Is it clear what behaviour is unacceptable, and when employees can disengage from an interaction?
- Escalation: Do people know how and where to report threats, abuse or repeated hostility?
- Risk: Are patterns of exposure actively reviewed rather than accepted as an inevitable part of the role?
- Protection: Are additional safeguards in place for roles or individuals facing greater risk?
The MPs’ staff research illustrates the difference these measures can make. Some staff described employers who actively considered their personal safety, alongside practical measures such as local security advisers, personal alarms and security at meetings. Others described feeling vulnerable when representing their MP in the community, including situations where repeated abuse had not resulted in sufficient action.
How organisations respond when hostility occurs
Prevention and protection should always be the priority. But organisations also need to be prepared to respond well when an employee does experience hostility.
What happens next can significantly shape how supported that person feels. Some further questions worth considering are:
- Immediate response: Is the employee believed, taken seriously and given space to step away if needed?
- Management: Do managers know how to respond and where to access further support?
- Follow-up: Does somebody check in afterwards rather than assuming the impact ended with the interaction?
- Adjustment: Where appropriate, can workload, exposure or working arrangements be reconsidered?
- Learning: Is the experience used to identify whether anything could change to reduce future risk?
These responses communicate something much bigger about the culture: when things become difficult, will this organisation stand behind me?
Psychological safety has a practical role here. Employees need to feel able to say that an experience has affected them without worrying that doing so will be interpreted as weakness or an inability to do their job. They also need confidence that speaking up will lead to an appropriate response.
Support from colleagues matters too. A team that acknowledges difficult experiences, checks in and notices when pressure is accumulating can help ensure people do not feel they have to carry the emotional impact alone.
Building skills without shifting responsibility
Alongside prevention, protection and organisational support, there is value in equipping employees with practical skills they can draw on if they experience a hostile or threatening interaction.
Our response to perceived threat can be rapid and automatic, affecting how we think, feel and react. Understanding what is happening, and having practical ways to regulate that response, can help someone retain a greater sense of agency during and after a difficult experience.
Giving people these skills can be a valuable part of supporting employees in public-facing roles. But the context matters. They should provide another layer of support, not transfer responsibility for managing hostility back to the person experiencing it.
Recognising the cumulative impact
That distinction becomes particularly important when exposure is repeated rather than confined to a single experience.
This was an important consideration in our recent resilience work with NatureScot’s Media and Campaigns team. Their public-facing communications role can include challenging online interactions. The work therefore considered emotional load, boundaries, recognising early signs of stress and fatigue, recovery and how colleagues can support one another during demanding periods.
Looking beyond individual incidents is therefore important. Repeated exposure may require organisations to consider whether that exposure can be shared or reduced, whether sufficient opportunities for recovery are built into the working environment, and whether managers are equipped to recognise when the emotional impact is accumulating.
Resilience without tolerance
Public hostility is a complex problem. While organisations cannot address all of the wider forces contributing to it, there is a great deal they can influence within their own working environments. They can reduce and manage risk, establish clear boundaries around unacceptable behaviour and respond appropriately when those boundaries are crossed. They can make it safe for people to speak up, recognise cumulative emotional load and ensure managers and teams know how to support people well.
Within that environment, equipping employees with practical skills can provide a further layer of support – helping them retain a sense of agency and manage the impact of difficult experiences.
Equipping people with resilience skills can help them navigate the pressures of public-facing work. But those skills should sit alongside organisational protection and support and never become a reason to tolerate the unacceptable.
About the author
About the author
Louise Padmore is the Founder of Work Well Being. After more than a decade in senior roles within fast-paced corporate environments, she founded the business in 2014 to help organisations create healthier, more sustainable ways of working. With a BSc in Management Science from Alliance Manchester Business School, Louise leads a multidisciplinary team supporting organisations across the UK and internationally to develop the human skills that strengthen wellbeing, leadership, team effectiveness and sustainable performance.
You may also like:
