One of the most important (and common) questions I’m asked about Upward Bullying is this:

 Is it really bullying, or just employees pushing back against bad leadership?

 Sometimes, it is the latter.

 Employees should absolutely feel empowered to call out unethical behaviour, poor leadership decisions, discrimination, and toxic management practices. Psychological safety isn’t a buzzword.  It’s a workplace essential.

 Healthy organisations foster environments where concerns can be raised, decisions can be challenged, and accountability flows in all directions, including upward.

 A leader facing justified criticism or consequences for misconduct, harmful behaviour, or repeated mismanagement is not a victim of upward bullying.

 That’s called accountability.

 And when workplaces that confuse the two, they risk protecting poor leadership at the expense of their people and culture.

 

But what about when it’s something else entirely?

 What about when the pushback isn’t rooted in culture, safety, or values… but about power?

 What if it’s a deliberate, organised effort to isolate, discredit, and ultimately remove a leader, not because they’re incompetent or harmful, but because they threaten someone else’s influence, comfort, or control?

 That’s when the conversation changes.

 

Separating Accountability from Manipulation

 Leadership comes with scrutiny. It should.

 In any well-functioning workplace, leaders are expected to make tough calls, manage competing priorities, and occasionally deliver decisions that not everyone will like.

 Part of leadership is knowing that challenge and feedback come with the role.

 But there’s a critical difference between healthy pushback and malicious targeting.

 Let’s clarify  what those look like.

 Healthy Pushback:

• Raising legitimate concerns through appropriate, transparent channels
• Providing constructive feedback, even when it’s critical or uncomfortable
• Questioning decisions to improve outcomes or protect culture
• Advocating for ethical leadership and safe, positive workplaces
• Challenging leaders when their behaviour is harmful or inappropriate

These are signs of a robust, psychologically safe workplace, where employees are committed to doing what’s right for the organisation and each other.

 It’s part of everyone’s role in creating a safe, respectful culture.

 Upward Bullying:

• Organised exclusion: deliberately freezing a leader out of conversations, meetings, or decisions
• Weaponising feedback to create a manipulated narrative of incompetence
• Spreading misinformation or rallying others to turn against a leader for personal or political reasons
• Undermining a leader’s authority or setting them up to fail through sabotage, obstruction, or passive resistance
• Using grievances, complaints, or ‘feedback’ strategically to destabilise and oust a leader

When teams or individuals conspire, overtly or subtly, to remove a leader unfairly, the damage reaches far beyond that individual.

 It fractures trust, destabilises decision-making, and creates a culture ruled by power plays, not principles.

 

A Problem That Goes Both Ways

 Let’s be honest: bullying in workplaces isn’t confined to just top-down.

 Downward bullying: when leaders misuse authority to intimidate, control, or harm employees, is well-documented, and its impacts are severe.

 But Upward Bullying is a real, and often overlooked. 

 In fact, when one form of bullying is tolerated, the other often emerges alongside it. 

 A culture that silences employee dissent breeds bullying in all directions.

A culture that undermines and scapegoats leaders fosters fear-based decision-making.

 Neither is sustainable.

Both harm culture.
Both drive good people out.
And both are costly.

 

Why the Distinction Matters

 When organisations fail to distinguish legitimate advocacy from manipulative sabotage they risk:

• Dismissing real concerns as ‘team politics’ or ‘personality clashes’
• Protecting toxic leaders because feedback is labelled as bullying
• Driving out capable leaders under the guise of ‘feedback’ or ‘poor fit’
• Confusing employees about what constitutes safe challenge vs retaliation

• Shifting decision-making from values-led to fear-based

If every complaint is treated as sabotage, you protect poor leadership. 

If every pushback is labelled bullying, you silence advocacy.

 The nuance matters.

How you respond defines the culture you create.​

 

So, When Isn’t it Upward Bullying?

 Here’s a simple lens:

• It’s NOT Upward Bullying when employees are holding leaders accountable for misconduct, unethical decisions, discrimination, or behaviour that harms the team or the organisation.
• It IS Upward Bullying when employees manipulate systems, weaponise feedback, or orchestrate exclusion in an attempt to unfairly remove a leader for reasons unrelated to performance or wellbeing.

The difference lies in:

Motive. Method. And Outcome.

One protects people and culture.
The other protects power and control.

 

Creating Cultures That Can Hold Both Truths

 Workplaces must be able to hold space for both:

• Accountability when leaders cause harm
• Protection when leaders are unfairly targeted

This requires:

• Clear, transparent pathways for raising concerns without fear of retaliation
• Training HR and senior leaders to distinguish feedback form sabotage

• Cultures where power is not weaponised, whether by leaders or teams ensuring psychological safety

• Swift, fair responses to manipulation or exclusion, or sabotage, regardless of who’s responsible

Final Thoughts

Upward Bullying isn’t about protecting bad leaders.

It’s about ensuring good leaders aren’t unfairly broken by toxic power dynamics.

 It’s about ensuring no one, employee or leader, is allowed to destabilise culture for personal gain.

 Have you ever seen a leader unfairly targeted by their own team? 

Or worked in a culture where genuine employee advocacy was dismissed as ‘bullying’?

 I’d love to hear your experiences and reflections. Because the more we talk about this, the better equipped we become to create fairer, safer, and more ethical workplaces.