Governance interference and manipulative behaviors increasingly jeopardize the stability and success of organizations—particularly public schools, government agencies, and non-profits. One destructive dynamic that continues to undermine organizational leadership is the “kiss up, kick down” behavior—a toxic practice where individuals ingratiate themselves with superiors while mistreating subordinates. This manipulative tactic erodes policies, dismantles accountability mechanisms, and strips leaders of authority, resulting in organizational dysfunction and instability.

Emerging research highlights that this destructive behavior is a key contributor to organizational failure, particularly in governance frameworks where decision-makers overreach their authority.

Understanding ‘Kiss Up, Kick Down‘ Behavior

The “kiss up, kick down“phenomenon occurs when individuals strategically align themselves with those in power while exploiting, bullying, or sabotaging those they perceive as less powerful (Tepper, 2007). This manipulation masks toxic behaviors and often makes it difficult for leadership to recognize the harm being done until the damage is widespread.

In hierarchical organizations, this behavior thrives where accountability systems are weak, power imbalances are significant, and governance bodies fail to adhere to proper oversight protocols (Hoel, Einarsen, & Cooper, 2020).

Research reveals that employees engaging in manipulative behaviors like “kissing up” to superiors often demonstrate unethical behaviors toward peers, exploiting positional power for self-gain (Oregon State University, 2018).

The Role of Governance Interference in Amplifying Dysfunction

When boards of trustees, school boards, or oversight bodies engage in micromanagement, their interference creates an environment that enables “kiss up, kick down” behavior to thrive. This interference often results in:

• Policy Erosion:This occurs when manipulative employees, board members, or stakeholders bypass established policies to avoid accountability (Minor, 2022).
  
• Deterioration of Accountability: Decision-makers often align themselves with toxic individuals to maintain control, allowing unethical conduct to go unchecked (Killoren, 2010).
  
• Authority Undermined: Administrators and organizational leaders lose their ability to maintain standards, resulting in chaos and organizational failure (Hood, 2010).

Case Studies Illustrating Governance Interference and ‘Kiss Up, Kick Down‘ Behavior

Houston Independent School District (HISD) Takeover

In 2023, the Texas Education Agency intervened and took control of the Houston Independent School District (HISD) due to governance dysfunction and deteriorating student performance. The district experienced leadership instability, a projected $250 million deficit, and reports of systemic failure to implement state standards. HISD’s board was criticized for micromanagement, which stripped school administrators of their authority to enforce educational standards (Texas Education Agency, 2023).

Case Study: The Loyal Employee Who Undermined Leadership

At Redacted Unified School District, a longtime district employee named Michael T. built a strong reputation with the board of trustees by volunteering at events, publicly supporting board initiatives, and consistently praising board members during public meetings. Michael’s outward loyalty positioned him as a trusted voice in district matters.

Behind closed doors, however, Michael fostered a toxic work environment. As the district’s operations director, he manipulated scheduling to overwork certain employees while rewarding others. He spread rumors about his direct supervisor, the assistant superintendent, creating distrust among staff. Michael resisted district initiatives and undermined new safety policies by claiming they were unworkable or unnecessary.

When the assistant superintendent attempted to address Michael’s behavior through performance reviews and disciplinary documentation, Michael appealed directly to the board. Relying on his trusted status with board members, Michael claimed he was being targeted for personal reasons. Without fully understanding the district’s day-to-day operations, the board bypassed the investigation process, overruled the superintendent’s authority, and formally reprimanded the assistant superintendent.

Following the assistant superintendent’s forced resignation, district staff morale plummeted. Several key employees resigned, stating they felt unsupported and unsafe. Within months, the district faced safety violations, mismanagement of grant funds, and deteriorating community trust—all linked to Michael’s manipulative tactics and the board’s interference.

Case Study: The Dangerous Student Reinstated by a Misguided Board (Fictional but Realistic Scenario)

At Redacted Unified School District, a student named Ethan had a well-documented history of aggressive behavior. Over two years, Ethan had been involved in multiple altercations with peers, staff, and even security officers. After a violent incident where Ethan physically assaulted another student in the cafeteria, the school administration followed district protocols and expelled him.

Ethan’s parents immediately approached the school board, claiming their son was unfairly targeted. The board, unfamiliar with Ethan’s behavioral history and lacking investigative tools to assess the situation thoroughly, overturned the expulsion and demanded Ethan be reinstated without a behavior contract or intervention plan.

Weeks later, Ethan assaulted a teacher during class, resulting in severe injuries and police involvement. The school community erupted in anger, with parents demanding answers about how a known violent student had been allowed back on campus. Investigation revealed that the administration had followed all proper procedures, yet the school board’s intervention had undermined the established accountability system, exposing students and staff to unnecessary danger.

The Psychological Impact of ‘Kiss Up, Kick Down‘ Behavior

Empirical research confirms that manipulative behaviors, including “kiss up, kick down,” can have severe psychological and organizational consequences:

• Increased Employee Burnout: Studies indicate that manipulative individuals who cultivate favor with superiors are more likely to mistreat peers and subordinates, creating an abusive and stressful work environment (Tepper, 2007).
  
• Moral Disengagement: Employees who engage in ingratiation with leadership often experience decreased empathy toward colleagues, reinforcing bullying tactics (Oregon State University, 2018).
  
• Hostile Work Environments: A meta-analysis revealed that organizations experiencing power struggles and toxic governance show higher employee turnover rates, absenteeism, and decreased productivity (Hoel et al., 2020).

Strategies to Combat Governance Interference and ‘Kiss Up, Kick Down‘ Behavior

Preventing the destructive effects of governance interference and manipulative tactics requires proactive strategies:

1. Strengthen Policy Enforcement: Organizations must enforce clear guidelines that empower administrators and managers to discipline toxic employees without fear of retaliation.
   
   
2. Implement Accountability Systems: Independent oversight bodies ensure that board decisions align with established policies and best practices.
   
   
3. Encourage Open Communication: Anonymous reporting systems allow employees to report misconduct without fear of backlash.
   
   
4. Provide Governance Training: Educating boards and trustees on ethical boundaries and proper oversight can reduce interference and foster effective leadership.
   
   
5. Hold Board Members Accountable: Implementing consequences for governance bodies that repeatedly undermine established policies protects organizational stability.
   
   

Conclusion

Governance interference combined with manipulative “kiss up, kick down” behavior continues to destroy organizations, non-profits, and public schools. By undermining established policies, toxic individuals exploit power imbalances and erode organizational accountability. Organizations must implement stronger governance frameworks to counteract these destructive behaviors, promote ethical leadership, and empower their managers and leaders with the authority needed to maintain control and stability. Without immediate intervention, this toxic dynamic will continue to unravel the foundations of institutions critical to public service and education.

References

Hood, C. (2010). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton University Press.

Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). Organizational effects of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice(3rd ed., pp. 209-234). CRC Press.

Killoren, R. (2010). The toll of workplace bullying. NCURA Magazine, 20(1), 12-14.

Minor, M. (2022). Kiss-up-kick-down to get ahead: A resource perspective on manipulative behaviors in leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 59(5), 1234-1259.

Oregon State University. (2018). Kissing up to the boss can increase employees’ bad behavior in the workplace. Oregon State University.

Texas Education Agency. (2023). Houston Independent School District takeover: TEA intervention report. Texas Education Agency.