A new study of senior leaders has lifted the hood on an often-overlooked problem – employees undermining or intimidating managers. And experts warn this ‘upward bullying’ is escalating across Australia and globally.
Leadership expert Maureen Kyne is currently working with education departments across schools and universities to strengthen leadership capability.
Having advised boards and executives across sectors, Kyne now sees these behaviours surfacing earlier, particularly within education and early career environments, giving her a unique perspective on how future leadership is being shaped.
This work has culminated in a new report, titled ‘Understanding and addressing upward bullying: The hidden leadership risk’.
It found that more than seven in ten (71%) senior leaders have experienced upward bullying, while an overwhelming 93% say it has shaken their confidence to lead. Four in five (80%) have witnessed the behaviour, and nearly three-quarters believe it is on the rise.
Perhaps most concerning, two-thirds (66%) say it is having a major negative impact on both performance and wellbeing.
“While awareness of the term ‘upward bullying’ is relatively high amongst leaders, understanding of how it operates in practice remains dangerously low,” the report states.
“Ambiguity, silence and misdiagnosis enable upward bullying to spread and take hold in organisations. When organisations frequently misclassify, minimise or mishandle these behaviours, leadership capability is often irreparably damaged or lost.”
This report calls for a shift away from treating upward bullying as an interpersonal issue and toward recognising it as a distinct organisational and governance risk – one that requires education, structured assessment and decisive action.
Below, The Educator speaks to Kyne about recognising upward bullying as a governance risk, identifying early warning signs in schools, maintaining leadership authority during resistance, and implementing practical strategies to address and mitigate its impact.
TE: Why should upward bullying be considered a serious governance and psychosocial risk?
Upward bullying should be considered a serious governance and psychosocial risk because it disrupts the integrity of leadership and decision-making. It is not simply interpersonal conflict; it is a pattern of behaviour that can erode authority, distort organisational processes, and create conditions where leaders operate under sustained pressure. When misinterpreted, it leads to inappropriate responses, delayed decisions, and increased psychological harm. From a governance perspective, it represents a blind spot, risk is present but not recognised. From a psychosocial lens, it contributes to stress, withdrawal, and burnout. Without early identification, it can escalate into organisational instability, legal exposure, and leadership attrition.
TE: The report shows upward bullying is often misread as a communication issue, performance concern or ordinary conflict. In an Australian K-12 school, what are the clearest early warning signs that a principal is dealing with upward bullying rather than healthy staff dissent or resistance to change?
The clearest distinction lies in patterns, not isolated behaviours. Healthy dissent is direct, evidence-based, and remains focused on issues. Upward bullying tends to be indirect, persistent, and often escalates through narrative rather than evidence. Early warning signs include concerns being raised sideways or external rather than with the principal, repeated questioning of authority in group settings, selective withholding of information, and informal alignment among staff. You may also see processes being used frequently without resolution. Individually, these behaviours can appear reasonable. Collectively, they indicate a shift in power dynamics. The key is not to assess single incidents, but to recognise emerging patterns over time.
TE: Another sobering finding from the report is that leaders often delay decisions out of fear of backlash. For principals leading sensitive change, how can they hold their authority without inflaming the situation?
Maintaining authority in these situations is less about control and more about clarity and consistency. Principals need to remain anchored in evidence, communicate decisions transparently, and avoid being drawn into reactive or defensive exchanges. Early resistance should be addressed directly and professionally, rather than accommodated or deferred. It is also important to distinguish between genuine feedback and patterns of destabilising behaviour.
When leaders delay decisions, it often reinforces the behaviour. Calm, structured responses, what I describe as Tranquil Leadership, help maintain authority without escalation. This approach focuses on clarity of expectations, consistency of response, and disciplined use of process rather than emotional reaction.
TE: You caution that many organisations and institutions are failing to address this important issue early. What are some strategies that school leaders can use to mitigate upward bullying?
Early recognition is critical. Leaders and HR teams need to shift from assessing isolated complaints to identifying behavioural patterns over time. Clear expectations around professional conduct, communication pathways, and accountability should be established and consistently reinforced. It is also important to ensure that complaint processes are applied with appropriate scrutiny and not relied upon as the sole indicator of risk. Leaders should address early signs of resistance or narrative-building before they escalate. Building leadership capability in recognising and responding to these dynamics is essential. Ultimately, mitigation comes from combining awareness, structured assessment, and timely, proportionate action.