Managing Up Is Not Leadership: Why Senior Managers Must Lead Down, Not Suck Up

TL;DR:

1. Senior managers should focus on truly leading and empowering their teams ("leading down") rather than spending time trying to impress their superiors ("managing up").
2. Managing up is a symptom of broken organizational culture, leading to distrust, stifled innovation, and high turnover.
3. True leadership, supported by academic theories like LMX, Servant Leadership, and Transformational Leadership, empowers teams, improves performance, and develops talent.
4. Organizations must clarify roles, promote open communication, invest in leadership development, and align incentives to foster genuine "leading down" behaviors.

Listen to an abstract of this article here and follow The Clarity Practice on Spotify.

‍

‍

1. Let's Get Real: Managing Up Is a Symptom, Not a Strategy – And It's Hurting Your Organization.

The corporate world is enamored with the idea of "managing up." It's often touted as a vital skill for career advancement, a way to "align with leadership" or "ensure your voice is heard." But let's be honest—if you're a senior manager spending your time managing up, something's broken.

Your role is to lead, to empower, and to clear the path for your team, not to navigate the whims of those above you.

Are your senior managers truly leading, or are they playing a never-ending game of corporate politics, constantly looking over their shoulders? This upward-focused energy perpetuates bureaucracy, stifles genuine initiative, and fundamentally shifts focus from organizational goals to individual appeasement.

2. The Academic Angle: Leadership Is About Empowering, Not Pleasing.

True leadership isn't about currying favor; it's about cultivating an environment where your team can thrive. Academic theories underscore this principle:

• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory: This framework emphasizes that effective leadership is built on high-quality, trusting relationships with individual team members. Leaders who focus on LMX cultivate an "in-group" where subordinates feel trusted, respected, and empowered. This relationship is characterized by mutual obligation and genuine collaboration, a stark contrast to the transactional nature often associated with "managing up." When a leader genuinely focuses on their team, they foster psychological safety and open communication, reducing the need for team members to "manage up" to their own boss.
  • Citation: Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Link to abstract/info on Leadership Quarterly
• Servant Leadership: Coined by Robert K. Greenleaf, servant leadership posits that the leader's primary role is to serve the needs of their team and the organization. It's about empowering others, fostering their personal and professional growth, and prioritizing their well-being and success. This philosophy inherently pulls a leader's focus downward, towards those they're responsible for developing and supporting, rather than upward towards those they seek to impress.
  • Citation: Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Link to Greenleaf.org overview
• Transformational Leadership: Bernard Bass's work on transformational leadership highlights leaders who inspire and motivate followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes and develop their own leadership potential. These leaders encourage intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, directly countering a "suck up" mentality. Their influence is built on vision and inspiration, not on political maneuvering or appeasement.
  • Citation: Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press. Link to Amazon book page for an overview

Moreover, the concept of "managing up" often stems from a fundamental lack of clarity in roles at the senior manager level. When senior managers are unclear about their responsibilities and empowered decision-making authority, they may default to pleasing their superiors instead of leading their teams effectively. This ambiguity leads to a fear of making the "wrong" decision without explicit approval, fostering a belief that their value is derived from pleasing their boss rather than from the performance and development of their team.

3. Cultural Context: Beyond Borders – The Global Nuances of "Managing Up."

The effectiveness and perception of managing up can vary significantly across different cultures. In Western cultures, particularly in the United States, managing up is often viewed as a proactive approach to aligning with leadership, demonstrating initiative, and strategic thinking.

However, in high-context cultures like Singapore, Japan, and Korea, where hierarchy and respect for authority are paramount, the overt practice of "managing up" can sometimes be viewed differently. Indeed, rethinking traditional leadership approaches in Singapore's high-performance culture is crucial.

While clear communication is always valued, constant upward reporting or attempting to influence decisions outside one's defined sphere might be perceived as overstepping boundaries or a lack of trust in delegated authority.

In these contexts, demonstrating competence by effectively "leading down" and delivering results within one's sphere of influence is a profound form of respect for authority, as it demonstrates capability and trustworthiness, freeing up superiors to focus on higher-level strategic concerns.

To understand these nuances, we can look at Hofstede's cultural dimensions. In high Power Distance cultures, there's a greater acceptance of hierarchical order. While deference to authority is expected, a senior manager demonstrating strong leadership to their own team, fostering autonomy, and delivering results can earn significant respect without resorting to overt "managing up." Conversely, in lower Power Distance cultures, proactive communication and input to superiors might be more readily accepted as collaborative.

• Citation: Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications. Link Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.

The crucial distinction lies not in communicating with superiors—which is vital for alignment—but in the intent behind the communication. Is it strategic input for organizational benefit or constant appeasement for personal gain?

4. The Organizational Impact: When Upward Management Becomes the Cancer of Culture.

When managing up becomes a widespread practice, it signals deeper, systemic organizational issues and has a detrimental impact on teams at all levels:

• Erosion of Trust and Morale: Employees, particularly juniors, quickly observe when success depends more on pleasing superiors than on performance or genuine contribution. This fosters cynicism, a "what you know, not who you know" culture, and severely damages morale and engagement.
• Stifled Innovation: Teams hesitate to take risks or propose new ideas, fearing they won't align with leadership's preferences. Why invest effort in a novel solution if the primary goal is merely to present what the boss wants to hear? This leads to a culture of mediocrity and missed opportunities.
• Increased Turnover: Talented individuals, especially those driven by impact and growth, are more likely to leave organizations where upward management overshadows genuine leadership. They seek environments where their contributions are valued based on results and their ability to lead rather than their political acumen.
• Decentralized Decision-Making Breaks Down: If senior managers are constantly seeking validation, crucial decisions are delayed, opportunities are missed, and agile responses to market changes become impossible.
  • Impact on Junior Teams when Leaders Expect to be Managed Up: Confusion and Resentment: Junior team members become confused about their actual responsibilities. Their focus shifts from task execution and learning to deciphering and anticipating their boss's unspoken needs and preferences. This breeds resentment, as their growth is sidelined by a need to perform "upward management."
  • Micromanagement (from juniors to bosses): Ironically, junior team members might start feeling the need to "micromanage" their boss, constantly providing updates, reminders, and assurances, even when not necessary, to prevent negative perceptions. This is a massive drain on productivity and mental energy.
  • Lack of Autonomy: If their boss expects them to "manage up," juniors are rarely given genuine autonomy or the chance to develop independent problem-solving skills. Every action requires pre-approval or excessive justification, stifling initiative.
  • Impact on Teams Whose Boss is Focused on Managing Up: Neglect and Lack of Support. When a boss is primarily focused on "managing up," their team inevitably suffers from neglect. They receive less guidance, fewer resources, and less advocacy. The boss's attention and energy are directed elsewhere.
  • Disempowerment: These teams often feel disempowered. Their ideas may not be heard, their concerns may not be escalated, and their achievements may not be fully recognized because their boss is too busy showcasing them to their superiors.
  • Lack of Development Opportunities: A manager obsessed with upward appeal is unlikely to invest time in mentoring, coaching, or creating growth opportunities for their team. Their priority is their own advancement, not the development of their direct reports.
  • Burnout and Disengagement: In such environments, team members are more susceptible to burnout and disengagement. They often take on additional responsibilities to compensate for their boss's lack of attention, which can result in feelings of being undervalued. This cycle leads to increased disengagement and, ultimately, high turnover rates.

5. Real-World Impact: Uber's Asian Expansion and the Power of Leading Down.

Consider Mike Brown, who spearheaded Uber's expansion in Asia. His approach dramatically contrasted with a "managing up" philosophy.

Instead of micromanaging from the top or constantly seeking validation from headquarters in San Francisco, Brown emphasized the critical importance of empowering local teams. He fostered autonomy by delegating significant decision-making authority to regional leaders and explicitly trusted their deep understanding of diverse local markets, regulatory landscapes, and cultural nuances.

By genuinely "leading down" and prioritizing the capabilities of his teams on the ground, Uber achieved rapid, often unprecedented growth across diverse and challenging markets, such as Singapore, Vietnam, and India. This approach freed local teams to innovate, adapt rapidly to market conditions, and truly own their success. Conversely, many organizations stumble in international expansion when rigid, top-down approaches driven by a culture of managing up stifle local autonomy and prevent on-the-ground talent from making critical, timely decisions.

6. What Should Organizations Do? Cultivating a Culture of True Leadership.

To foster genuine leadership, reduce the need for managing up, and create high-performing teams, organizations must proactively shift their focus:

1. Clarify Roles and Expectations, with a Downward Focus: Implement clear, outcomes-based job descriptions for senior managers that explicitly delineate their leadership mandate and empowered decision-making authority. Regularly conduct 360-degree feedback for senior managers, specifically assessing their team empowerment, delegation effectiveness, and ability to foster autonomy rather than reliance.
2. Promote Open Communication and Psychological Safety: Institute skip-level meetings where senior leaders meet with direct reports of their direct reports to gather unvarnished feedback and demonstrate a commitment to understanding team-level dynamics. Invest in training that builds psychological safety across all levels, emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives, constructive dissent, and the freedom to fail fast and learn.
3. Invest in Genuine Leadership Development, Not Political Maneuvering: Shift leadership training budgets from "executive presence" or "influencing up" courses to programs focused on coaching skills, conflict resolution within teams, strategic delegation, fostering psychological safety, and even exploring the profound benefits of mindful leadership for enhanced clarity and presence.
4. Align Incentives with Leadership Goals, Not Upward Appeasement: Redefine performance metrics for senior managers to include team engagement scores, retention of high-performers within their direct reports, successful delegation of responsibility, and the development of junior talent into senior managers' performance reviews and bonus structures. Publicly recognize and reward leaders who demonstrate exemplary "leading down" principles.

7. Evidence of Positive Outcomes: The Power of Leading Down.

The shift from "managing up" to "leading down" isn't just theoretical; it yields measurable, positive organizational outcomes supported by robust research in organizational behavior and human resources:

• Increased Employee Engagement and Motivation: When leaders genuinely empower their teams, delegating authority and trusting employees to make decisions, individuals feel valued, respected, and more connected to their work. This fosters a profound sense of ownership and purpose, leading to significantly higher motivation and engagement. Research consistently shows a strong correlation between employee empowerment and engagement. For instance, a meta-analysis by Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) found that psychological empowerment is positively related to job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
  • Citation: Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, J. A. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment: The role of psychological and socio-structural_reinforcers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–995. Link to ResearchGate abstract
• Enhanced Productivity and Performance: Empowered teams often demonstrate higher levels of productivity. When decision-making authority is delegated to those closest to the work, responses become quicker, and solutions are typically more innovative and practical. This leads to improved operational efficiency and overall team performance. A study by Spreitzer (1995) showed that empowered employees are more effective because they are more self-determined and feel a greater sense of impact.
  • Citation: Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. Link to APA Psycnet.
• Greater Innovation and Creativity: A "leading down" environment encourages risk-taking and experimentation, as employees feel psychologically safe to propose new ideas without fear of retribution. This contrasts sharply with environments where managers are constantly looking up, stifling any suggestion that might deviate from the perceived preferences of senior leadership. Research by Amabile (1998) on creativity in organizations underscores the importance of autonomy and freedom in how individuals accomplish their tasks as key drivers of creativity.
  • Citation: Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87. Link to HBR abstract/overview
• Stronger Talent Development and Retention: When leaders lead from the bottom up, they genuinely invest in the growth and development of their team members. Delegating challenging tasks provides invaluable opportunities for skill development, builds confidence, and prepares employees for future leadership roles. This focus on growth significantly improves employee retention, as individuals are more likely to stay with organizations that actively invest in their professional journey. Research by Allen and Meyer (1990) on organizational commitment highlights that employees are more committed when they feel supported and valued, which is a direct outcome of effective "leading down."
  • Citation: Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. Link to Wiley Online Library abstract

In essence, the "leading down" approach creates a virtuous cycle: empowered employees become more engaged, productive, and innovative, which in turn contributes to organizational success and strengthens the overall culture.

8. Final Thoughts: The Future of Leadership is Downward.

Managing up shouldn't be a necessity for senior managers. It's a relic of outdated hierarchical structures that stifle growth, innovation, and trust.

I once watched a talented team slowly fall apart under a leader who had perfected the art of managing up while completely abandoning those below.

This team was exceptional—skilled, motivated, and capable of delivering outstanding results. But their leader had eyes only for the C-suite. Every decision, every priority, every resource allocation was designed to make him look good to his stakeholders, regardless of what the business actually needed.

The result? A team that went from high-performing to demoralized in months.

While he charmed executives with presentations that catered to their pet projects and personal preferences, his team struggled with constantly shifting priorities, unclear direction, and a lack of support. They watched him take credit for their work in boardrooms while leaving them to figure out impossible timelines and conflicting demands.

The irony was brutal. His obsession with managing up actually made him a terrible leader. The team's performance declined, morale tanked, and eventually, the very stakeholders he was trying to impress started questioning his effectiveness.

He got the optics right but destroyed the engine that could have delivered tangible results.

That's when I learned the difference between political maneuvering and actual leadership. One gets you temporary visibility. The other builds something that lasts.

When organizations prioritize clear communication, build deep trust, and genuinely empower their leaders to focus on those they lead, the need for managing diminishes.

The actual impact of a leader isn't measured by how well they impress those above them but by the strength, engagement, and success of the team below them. It's time to shift the focus from pleasing those above to strategically leading those below.

The future of leadership is not upward; it's resolutely downward, empowering individuals and driving collective success.

If you or your business are seeking strategic clarity, contact us.

List of Citations:

• Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.
  • Link to Wiley Online Library abstract
• Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.
  • Link to HBR abstract/overview
• Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
  • Link to Amazon book page for an overview
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
  • Link to abstract/info on Leadership Quarterly
• Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
  • Link to Greenleaf.org overview
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
  • Sage Publications. Link to culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
• Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, J. A. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment: The role of psychological and socio-structural reinforcers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–995.
  • Link to ResearchGate abstract
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
  • Link to PA PsycNet.

‍