Leading Up

The Essence of Leading Up

Michael Useem's concept of "leading up" fundamentally challenges the traditional hierarchical view of leadership. At its core, leading up is the practice of exercising influence, providing guidance, and taking responsibility regardless of one's position in the organizational hierarchy. Useem argues that effective organizations require leadership at all levels, not just from those at the top. This means that mid-level managers, frontline employees, and individual contributors must develop the capacity to lead their superiors, peers, and the organization as a whole toward better decisions and outcomes.

The concept emerges from Useem's extensive research into corporate catastrophes and organizational successes, where he discovered that many failures occurred not because leaders at the top made poor decisions in isolation, but because those below them failed to speak up, challenge assumptions, or provide critical information. Leading up is about constructive engagement with authority, creating a culture where information flows freely in all directions, and ensuring that the best ideas rise to the surface regardless of their source.

Useem distinguishes leading up from mere subordination or compliance. It requires courage, strategic thinking, and a deep understanding of organizational dynamics. Those who lead up effectively combine loyalty to the organization with a willingness to dissent when necessary. They understand that their role is not simply to execute orders but to enhance the quality of decisions being made at higher levels by providing insights, raising concerns, and offering alternative perspectives that senior leaders might not otherwise consider.

This approach to leadership recognizes that modern organizations are too complex for command-and-control models to work effectively. The people closest to customers, operations, and emerging problems often have the most valuable information but may lack the authority to act on it directly. Leading up empowers these individuals to channel their knowledge upward in ways that influence strategic direction and operational decisions. It transforms the traditional pyramid structure into a more networked, collaborative system where leadership is distributed and responsibility is shared.

The Mutual Obligations Between Leaders and Followers

Useem presents a compelling framework for understanding the reciprocal responsibilities that exist between those who lead and those who follow. This concept moves beyond the traditional transactional view of organizational relationships to emphasize the moral and practical obligations that bind different levels of an organization together. According to Useem, leaders have an obligation to create environments where leading up is possible and encouraged, while followers have an obligation to engage actively in shaping organizational direction.

For those in senior positions, the obligation includes creating psychological safety, actively soliciting dissenting views, and demonstrating through action that they value input from all levels. Leaders must resist the tendency to surround themselves with yes-men and instead cultivate relationships with people who will tell them difficult truths. This requires humility, openness to criticism, and the emotional intelligence to separate ego from organizational interest. Useem provides examples of CEOs who deliberately sought out contradictory information and rewarded employees who challenged their thinking, creating cultures where leading up became normative rather than exceptional.

For those in subordinate positions, the obligation is equally demanding. It requires developing the competence to understand strategic issues, the courage to speak truth to power, and the judgment to know when and how to challenge authority constructively. Useem emphasizes that leading up is not about undermining authority or pursuing personal agendas; it's about serving the organization's best interests even when doing so feels uncomfortable or risky. This means doing homework, presenting alternatives rather than just problems, and being willing to support decisions once they're made, even if one's advice wasn't followed.

The relationship is fundamentally reciprocal because neither party can fulfill their role without the other's cooperation. Senior leaders cannot make optimal decisions without accurate information and diverse perspectives from below. Those at lower levels cannot influence outcomes without leaders who are receptive to their input. When both parties fulfill their obligations, organizations benefit from what Useem calls "distributed intelligence"—the collective wisdom of people throughout the organization rather than the limited perspective of a few individuals at the top. This mutual obligation framework transforms organizational hierarchy from a chain of command into a network of mutual accountability and shared purpose.

Case Study: The Challenger Disaster and Failures in Leading Up

Useem uses the 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster as a powerful illustration of what happens when leading up fails catastrophically. The technical details of the disaster are well-known—O-rings failed in cold temperatures, causing the shuttle to explode shortly after launch, killing all seven crew members. However, Useem's analysis focuses on the organizational and leadership failures that allowed the launch to proceed despite clear warnings from engineers who understood the risks.

Engineers at Morton Thiokol, the company that manufactured the solid rocket boosters, had data showing that O-rings became less effective in cold temperatures. The night before the launch, with temperatures forecast to be unusually cold, these engineers strongly recommended against launching. They presented their concerns to managers at both Morton Thiokol and NASA, but their warnings were ultimately overridden. The engineers failed to lead up effectively in several critical ways: they presented their case tentatively rather than forcefully, they allowed themselves to be pressured into reversing their position, and they didn't escalate their concerns when their immediate managers dismissed them.

Equally important were the failures of those in authority. NASA managers created an environment where schedule pressures overwhelmed safety concerns. They demanded that engineers prove conclusively that it was unsafe to launch, rather than requiring proof that it was safe—a reversal of the burden of proof that should govern such decisions. When engineers expressed uncertainty, managers interpreted it as permission to proceed rather than a red flag requiring more investigation. The organizational culture discouraged dissent and punished those who raised obstacles to meeting deadlines.

Useem extracts several crucial lessons from this tragedy. First, technical competence alone is insufficient; those with critical knowledge must also develop the communication skills and courage to ensure their message is heard. Second, organizational cultures that prioritize targets over truth create conditions for catastrophic failure. Third, the responsibility for leading up doesn't end when one's concerns are initially dismissed; it may require escalation, documentation, or other forms of persistent advocacy. The Challenger disaster demonstrates that leading up is not a nice-to-have soft skill but a critical organizational capability that can literally mean the difference between life and death.

Constructive Dissent and Speaking Truth to Power

One of the most challenging aspects of leading up is knowing how to dissent constructively when you disagree with decisions being made by those in authority. Useem dedicates substantial attention to this delicate art, recognizing that poorly executed dissent can damage careers and relationships while failing to change outcomes, whereas effective dissent can redirect organizations away from harmful paths. The key is understanding the difference between destructive opposition and constructive challenge.

Constructive dissent, according to Useem, begins with establishing credibility and trust before moments of disagreement arise. Those who consistently demonstrate competence, loyalty to organizational goals, and good judgment earn the right to be heard when they raise concerns. This means that leading up is not something you do only in moments of crisis; it's a continuous practice of building relationships, demonstrating value, and establishing yourself as someone whose perspective merits serious consideration. Useem emphasizes that you cannot withdraw credibility from a bank account you haven't first deposited into through consistent excellent performance and collaborative behavior.

The manner of dissent matters enormously. Useem advises presenting dissenting views privately before going public, framing concerns in terms of organizational interests rather than personal preferences, and offering solutions alongside criticisms. Effective dissenters do their homework, marshaling data and examples to support their position. They choose their battles carefully, recognizing that constant opposition diminishes influence. They also demonstrate respect for authority even while challenging specific decisions, making clear that their goal is to help leaders make better choices rather than to undermine their position.

Useem provides examples of effective dissent from military contexts, corporate settings, and political environments. In one case, a mid-level executive at a major corporation successfully challenged a proposed acquisition by presenting detailed financial analysis showing hidden risks that senior leaders had overlooked. Rather than simply saying the deal was bad, she provided specific data, alternative scenarios, and suggestions for due diligence that would either validate or refute her concerns. Her approach was respectful, thorough, and focused on helping the CEO make an informed decision rather than on being right. The acquisition was ultimately restructured in ways that avoided significant losses.

The concept of speaking truth to power also requires emotional intelligence and cultural awareness. Different leaders respond to different approaches; some prefer direct confrontation while others need time to process information privately. Effective upward leaders read these preferences and adapt their communication styles accordingly. They also recognize that timing matters—raising concerns when leaders are rushed or stressed is less likely to succeed than choosing moments when they can give issues proper attention. Ultimately, Useem argues that organizations need to cultivate cultures where constructive dissent is expected and valued, not merely tolerated, transforming it from an act of courage into a routine organizational practice.

The Principle of Leading Without Authority

A central theme in Useem's work is that formal authority is neither necessary nor sufficient for effective leadership. Leading up requires influencing outcomes without the power to simply command compliance. This principle has profound implications for how we understand leadership and develop leaders throughout organizations. Useem argues that the ability to lead without authority is actually a more sophisticated and valuable skill than leading with it, because it relies on persuasion, credibility, and coalition-building rather than positional power.

Leading without authority begins with understanding that influence flows from expertise, relationships, and demonstrated value rather than titles. When you cannot simply order people to follow, you must give them compelling reasons to listen to your ideas and support your initiatives. This requires developing deep knowledge in areas that matter to the organization, building networks of relationships across hierarchical and functional boundaries, and consistently delivering results that demonstrate your judgment is sound. Useem emphasizes that this form of leadership is more sustainable than authority-based leadership because it's grounded in genuine respect rather than mere compliance.

The practical application of this principle involves several key strategies. First, leaders without authority must become skilled at framing issues in ways that align with the interests and values of those they seek to influence. Rather than simply arguing for what they want, they must understand what others want and show how their proposal serves those interests. Second, they must build coalitions, recognizing that influence is multiplied when multiple voices support the same message. Third, they must master the art of the question, using inquiry to guide thinking rather than directives to command action. Useem provides examples of mid-level managers who successfully redirected organizational strategy by asking penetrating questions that caused senior leaders to reconsider their assumptions.

This principle also highlights the importance of lateral leadership—influencing peers and colleagues across the organization who have no reporting relationship to you. In matrix organizations and cross-functional teams, much of the work gets done through lateral influence rather than vertical authority. Those who can coordinate across silos, negotiate competing priorities, and build consensus among equals become invaluable to organizational success. Useem argues that these lateral leadership skills are essentially the same as upward leadership skills: both require persuasion, credibility, and the ability to advance shared goals without relying on formal power.

The concept of leading without authority also prepares individuals for eventual positions of formal authority. Those who learn to influence others through expertise and relationships rather than position develop more sustainable leadership capabilities. When they do assume formal authority, they bring with them an understanding that power is most effective when used sparingly, and that the best decisions emerge from collaborative processes that draw on diverse perspectives. This creates a virtuous cycle where experience in leading up creates better leaders at the top, who in turn create environments that enable more effective leading up throughout the organization.

Organizational Culture and Enabling Systems

Useem recognizes that individual acts of leading up, no matter how skilled, cannot succeed in organizational cultures that actively discourage upward influence. He therefore devotes significant attention to the organizational conditions that enable or inhibit leading up, arguing that creating these conditions is one of the primary responsibilities of senior leadership. The culture of an organization—its unwritten rules about who can speak, what can be said, and how dissent is received—determines whether leading up becomes routine practice or dangerous exception.

Enabling cultures share several characteristics. They demonstrate through repeated examples that messengers of bad news are valued rather than punished. They create formal mechanisms for upward communication, such as skip-level meetings, anonymous feedback systems, and reverse mentoring programs where junior employees advise senior leaders. They celebrate instances where someone's willingness to challenge authority prevented mistakes or created opportunities. Most importantly, leaders in these cultures model receptiveness to input, publicly acknowledging when they've changed their minds based on information from below and thanking those who had the courage to provide it.

Useem contrasts enabling cultures with toxic ones where leading up is dangerous. In some organizations, hierarchy is so rigid that any challenge to authority is seen as insubordination. In others, leaders surround themselves with loyalists who tell them what they want to hear rather than what they need to know. Still others create such competitive internal environments that people hoard information and undermine colleagues rather than collaborating for organizational success. These cultures produce predictable pathologies: strategic blindness as leaders lose touch with operational realities, poor decisions that could have been prevented with better information, and talented employees who either leave or disengage.

The structural systems that support leading up include performance evaluation processes that assess not just results but how they were achieved, including whether individuals sought input and were receptive to dissenting views. They include decision-making protocols that require devil's advocates or formal consideration of alternatives before major commitments are made. They include communication technologies and practices that make it easy for people at all levels to share information upward. Useem emphasizes that these cannot be mere window dressing; they must be genuinely embedded in how the organization operates, with consequences for those who violate them and rewards for those who exemplify them.

Creating an enabling culture is particularly challenging because it requires those in power to voluntarily constrain their own authority and open themselves to criticism. This is why Useem argues it must begin at the very top, with CEOs and senior executives who genuinely believe that better decisions emerge from inclusive processes. These leaders must be secure enough to admit uncertainty, humble enough to acknowledge gaps in their knowledge, and wise enough to recognize that their positional authority can intimidate others into silence unless they actively work to counteract that dynamic. When such leadership exists at the top, it cascades through the organization, creating norms and expectations that make leading up not just possible but expected at every level.

The Personal Risks and Courage Required

Useem does not romanticize leading up or minimize its personal costs. He acknowledges frankly that challenging authority, delivering bad news, or dissenting from group consensus can damage careers, relationships, and reputations. Some of his most powerful examples involve individuals who paid significant personal prices for doing what they believed was right. Understanding these risks and developing the courage to accept them is an essential component of leading up, and Useem provides practical guidance for navigating this difficult terrain.

The risks are multiple and varied. At the most extreme, people have lost their jobs for challenging decisions or exposing problems that superiors wanted to keep hidden. More commonly, they experience subtle forms of marginalization: being excluded from important meetings, passed over for promotions, or labeled as "not a team player." There are social costs as well; relationships with colleagues and superiors can be strained when you're the one raising uncomfortable questions or challenging popular initiatives. Even when the organization ultimately benefits from your intervention, you may not receive credit or recognition, and may even be resented for having been right when others were wrong.

Given these risks, Useem emphasizes the importance of strategic courage—not recklessness, but calculated risk-taking based on careful assessment of what's at stake. This means choosing battles carefully, recognizing that you cannot fight every fight and retain credibility and political capital. It means preparing thoroughly before challenging authority, ensuring that your facts are solid and your reasoning is sound. It means building alliances so you're not a lone voice, which both strengthens your case and distributes the risk. And it means knowing your own limits—understanding what principles you're unwilling to compromise and what personal costs you're prepared to bear.

Useem also addresses the question of when leading up requires going outside normal channels. Most of the time, working within the system is more effective and less risky than whistleblowing or going around your immediate superiors. However, he acknowledges that there are circumstances where escalation or external reporting becomes necessary—when immediate supervisors are part of the problem, when organizational processes are designed to suppress rather than surface information, or when the potential harm from inaction is severe enough to justify extraordinary measures. These decisions are among the most difficult anyone faces in their career, and Useem provides frameworks for thinking through the ethical and practical dimensions involved.

Ultimately, Useem argues that the courage required for leading up comes from clarity about values and purpose. When you understand what you stand for and why it matters, accepting risks becomes more feasible. When you see yourself as serving something larger than your own career advancement—whether that's the organization's mission, the safety of colleagues, or ethical principles you hold dear—the personal costs feel more bearable. He profiles individuals who found this courage in different ways: some from strong ethical convictions, others from professional identity and standards, still others from loyalty to the people who would be affected by poor decisions. The common thread is that they had a why that was powerful enough to overcome the very real fears associated with challenging those in authority.

Building Trust and Credibility with Senior Leaders

One of the most critical practical applications from "Leading Up" involves establishing and maintaining trust with those above you in the organizational hierarchy. Useem emphasizes that credibility is the currency of upward influence, and it must be earned through consistent demonstration of competence, integrity, and judgment. The book provides concrete strategies for building this essential foundation.

Begin by developing deep expertise in your area of responsibility. When you speak to senior leaders, ensure your information is accurate, comprehensive, and well-researched. Useem illustrates this through the example of a middle manager at a pharmaceutical company who noticed potential safety issues with a new drug. Rather than rushing to senior leadership with incomplete concerns, she systematically gathered data, consulted with experts, and prepared a thorough analysis before presenting her findings. This methodical approach earned her credibility that proved invaluable when she later needed to challenge executive decisions.

Additionally, demonstrate reliability by following through on commitments and being transparent about both successes and failures. When you make mistakes, acknowledge them quickly and present solutions. This honesty builds trust over time. Practice delivering difficult news without sugar-coating while simultaneously offering constructive alternatives. Senior leaders value those who bring problems along with potential solutions rather than simply dumping issues on their desks.

Useem also highlights the importance of understanding your senior leaders' priorities, pressures, and perspectives. Invest time in learning what keeps them awake at night, what metrics they're measured against, and what strategic initiatives matter most to them. Frame your upward communication in terms of these priorities. For instance, if your CEO is focused on market expansion, position your suggestions within that context rather than solely from your departmental viewpoint.

Timing Your Interventions Effectively

The book dedicates substantial attention to the art of timing when leading up. Even the most well-intentioned and necessary upward leadership can fail if delivered at the wrong moment. Useem provides practical guidance on recognizing opportune moments and avoiding counterproductive timing.

First, assess the organizational climate and your leader's current state of mind. Is your boss dealing with a crisis, facing a critical deadline, or under unusual stress? If so, consider whether your intervention is truly urgent or if it can wait for a more receptive moment. Useem recounts the story of a division president who wisely postponed a strategic recommendation when he learned the CEO was managing a board crisis. By waiting two weeks, he secured a thoughtful hearing instead of a distracted dismissal.

However, timing also means recognizing when delay is dangerous. In situations involving ethical violations, safety concerns, or strategic threats, waiting can be catastrophic. The book examines the NASA Challenger disaster as a cautionary tale of failed upward leadership, where engineers possessed critical information about O-ring failures but failed to communicate the urgency effectively to decision-makers. The tragedy underscores that sometimes leading up requires pushing through resistance despite unfavorable timing.

Create regular touchpoints with senior leaders that aren't crisis-driven. Weekly or monthly check-ins provide natural opportunities to raise concerns or suggestions without appearing to ambush your superior. These routine conversations also help you better gauge receptivity and build the relationship capital necessary for more difficult conversations. Additionally, consider leveraging formal moments like strategic planning sessions, budget reviews, or performance evaluations as appropriate forums for upward influence.

Crafting Persuasive Messages for Leadership

Useem emphasizes that how you communicate matters as much as what you communicate when leading up. The book offers specific techniques for crafting messages that resonate with senior leaders and increase your likelihood of influencing organizational direction.

Structure your communications using what Useem calls the "executive summary approach." Senior leaders operate under severe time constraints and information overload. Begin with your bottom-line recommendation or key insight, then provide supporting analysis. This inverted pyramid style allows busy executives to grasp your main point immediately and decide how deeply they want to engage with the details. A marketing director at a retail company exemplified this approach when recommending a major strategy shift. She opened with "I recommend we exit the X market segment within six months to preserve $15 million in capital for higher-return opportunities," then provided the supporting analysis.

Use data and evidence, but don't drown your audience in numbers. Select the most compelling metrics that directly address senior leadership concerns. Useem advises balancing quantitative evidence with qualitative insights, including customer feedback, competitive intelligence, or employee sentiment. When possible, reference external benchmarks or industry trends that provide context for your recommendations.

Anticipate objections and address them proactively. Senior leaders have reached their positions partly through critical thinking and healthy skepticism. If you can predict their likely concerns and address them before being asked, you demonstrate strategic thinking while removing barriers to acceptance. Frame alternatives transparently, showing that you've considered multiple options rather than fixating on a single solution. This approach invites collaboration rather than triggering defensiveness.

"The most effective upward leaders don't just present problems or solutions—they facilitate better decision-making by providing senior leaders with the information, analysis, and options needed to make informed choices."

Forming Strategic Alliances and Coalitions

Leading up rarely succeeds as a solo endeavor. Useem's research reveals that effective upward leadership often involves building coalitions of support before approaching senior decision-makers. This practical application requires political savvy, relationship-building skills, and strategic thinking.

Identify potential allies who share your concerns or would benefit from your proposed changes. These might include peers in other departments, more senior colleagues who aren't direct decision-makers, or even external stakeholders like board members or key customers. Useem describes how a operations manager concerned about quality issues strategically engaged the customer service director, whose team was receiving complaints, and the sales director, who was losing deals due to quality problems. By the time they approached the COO together, their united front and cross-functional perspective proved far more persuasive than any individual appeal would have been.

Build coalitions thoughtfully, avoiding the appearance of conspiracy or end-running legitimate authority. Frame your collaborative approach as gathering diverse perspectives rather than organizing opposition. Be transparent with your boss about conversations you're having with others regarding organizational issues. This openness maintains trust while still leveraging collective influence.

Consider engaging informal influencers—people without formal authority who nonetheless command respect and attention from senior leaders. Every organization has trusted advisors, long-tenured employees, or subject matter experts whose opinions carry weight. If you can earn their support, they may amplify your message in ways you cannot. Useem highlights a technology company where a junior engineer's concerns about a product launch gained traction only after she convinced a respected senior engineer to champion the issue.

Knowing When to Escalate or Exit

One of the most challenging practical applications involves recognizing when your upward leadership efforts have reached their limits. Useem provides frameworks for making difficult decisions about escalation and, in extreme cases, departure from the organization.

Escalation should follow a clear progression. Begin with your immediate supervisor, providing them with full opportunity to address the issue. Document your concerns and their responses. If problems persist and involve significant ethical, legal, or strategic implications, consider carefully whether escalation to the next level is warranted. Useem cautions that bypassing your direct supervisor can damage that critical relationship irreparably, so ensure the issue justifies this risk.

The book provides criteria for determining when escalation is appropriate: situations involving legal violations, significant financial risk, safety threats, or ethical breaches generally warrant escalation beyond your immediate superior. However, differences in strategic judgment or operational preferences typically do not. A financial analyst who discovered accounting irregularities was right to escalate to the CFO and eventually the audit committee when her supervisor dismissed her concerns. Conversely, a product manager who disagreed with his boss's timeline for a launch would not have been justified in bypassing his supervisor.

Sometimes, despite your best efforts at leading up, organizational values or practices remain fundamentally misaligned with your principles. Useem acknowledges that exit becomes a legitimate option when you've exhausted appropriate channels and the organization persists in directions you cannot support. However, he advises against impulsive departures. Before resigning, ensure you've truly attempted upward leadership, considered whether you're being inflexible, and have a clear plan for what comes next.

"Your responsibility is to lead up effectively and courageously. The organization's response to that leadership reveals whether it deserves your continued commitment."

Developing Your Personal Leadership Brand

Useem argues that consistent upward leadership shapes your reputation and career trajectory. This practical application involves deliberately cultivating a leadership brand that positions you as someone worth listening to when you challenge or guide those above you.

Identify what you want to be known for and ensure your actions consistently reinforce that identity. If you want to be seen as a strategic thinker, regularly contribute insights that connect operational issues to broader business strategy. If you want to be viewed as customer-focused, consistently bring customer perspective into internal discussions. A human resources director built a reputation as a "culture guardian" by thoughtfully raising concerns whenever initiatives might undermine organizational values. When she spoke up, leaders listened because her interventions were predictably aligned with protecting what made the company successful.

Maintain consistency across situations and over time. Leaders who are selectively courageous—speaking up only when it's safe or serves their interests—undermine their credibility. Useem emphasizes that your willingness to lead up should be principle-driven rather than politically calculated. This doesn't mean being confrontational about every disagreement, but rather having clear criteria for when issues warrant upward leadership and applying those criteria consistently.

Seek feedback on how your upward leadership is perceived. Ask trusted colleagues or mentors whether your interventions seem constructive or obstructive, whether your timing is effective, and whether your communication style resonates with senior audiences. This self-awareness allows you to refine your approach continuously. One executive Useem interviewed established a practice of debriefing difficult conversations with a mentor, analyzing what worked and what didn't, and adjusting his technique accordingly.

Cultivating Moral Courage in Organizational Life

Perhaps the most profound practical application in "Leading Up" involves developing the moral courage necessary to challenge authority when circumstances demand it. Useem acknowledges that this is the most difficult aspect of upward leadership, yet also potentially the most important.

Begin by clarifying your personal values and identifying your non-negotiables. What principles are you unwilling to compromise, even at professional cost? What organizational behaviors would you consider dealbreakers? This clarity provides the foundation for courageous action when you encounter situations that cross your ethical boundaries. Useem suggests writing these principles down and revisiting them periodically to ensure they remain current and deeply held.

Practice courage in small ways before you need it in large ones. If you only attempt upward leadership during crises, you'll lack the skills and emotional capacity required. Instead, develop the habit of respectfully questioning assumptions, asking clarifying questions about strategy, or suggesting alternatives in low-stakes situations. These routine acts of constructive challenge build both your capability and your reputation, making it more natural when you need to take a significant stand.

Recognize and manage your fear. Leading up, particularly on sensitive issues, triggers legitimate concerns about career consequences, damaged relationships, or professional isolation. Useem doesn't dismiss these fears but encourages readers to assess them realistically. Often, our imagined worst-case scenarios are more catastrophic than reality. Additionally, consider the consequences of not speaking up—to the organization, to stakeholders, and to your own integrity. A procurement officer who exposed bid-rigging in his department admitted to being terrified of retaliation, but ultimately concluded that silent complicity posed greater risks to his career and self-respect than principled disclosure.

Build a support network outside your direct reporting line. Having mentors, peer relationships, or external advisors provides perspective when you're considering difficult upward leadership decisions. These trusted confidants can help you test your thinking, consider alternatives you might have missed, and provide emotional support during stressful periods. They can also serve as sounding boards for how to frame your message or time your intervention most effectively.

Finally, Useem emphasizes the importance of separating your identity from your position. If your entire self-worth is tied to your current role or organization, the risk of upward leadership feels existential. Maintaining outside interests, relationships, and sources of meaning creates resilience. You'll be more capable of courageous leadership when you know that, if necessary, you could walk away and still maintain your sense of purpose and identity.

The Concept of Leading Up

Michael Useem's concept of "leading up" challenges the traditional hierarchical understanding of leadership by asserting that effective leadership is not confined to those at the top of organizational structures. Leading up refers to the practice of exercising influence, providing guidance, and taking initiative from positions below the apex of authority. This framework recognizes that middle managers, frontline employees, and individual contributors possess unique perspectives and information that are critical to organizational success, and they have both the opportunity and responsibility to shape decisions made by their superiors.

The foundation of leading up rests on the principle that organizational effectiveness requires bidirectional communication and influence. Useem argues that those closest to customers, operations, or emerging challenges often see problems and opportunities before senior leadership does. When individuals at lower levels remain passive, waiting for direction from above, organizations become slow to adapt and vulnerable to competitive threats. Leading up transforms the traditional command-and-control model into a more dynamic system where information flows upward as readily as directives flow downward.

Useem emphasizes that leading up is not about insubordination or undermining authority. Instead, it involves constructively influencing those in positions of greater formal power to make better decisions. This requires a delicate balance: demonstrating respect for hierarchical structures while simultaneously challenging assumptions, offering alternative perspectives, and advocating for necessary changes. The most effective practitioners of leading up understand that their role is to enhance their leaders' decision-making capacity by providing timely, accurate, and candid input.

A critical dimension of this framework is the recognition that leading up serves organizational interests rather than personal ambition. Useem distinguishes between self-serving manipulation and genuine leadership from below. The former seeks personal advantage at the expense of collective goals, while the latter prioritizes organizational welfare even when doing so involves personal risk. This ethical foundation is essential because leading up often requires individuals to deliver unwelcome news, challenge prevailing strategies, or advocate for unpopular positions—actions that could jeopardize one's career if motivated by selfish concerns.

The Upward Leadership Framework

Useem presents a structured framework for exercising upward influence that consists of several interconnected elements. First among these is the imperative to thoroughly understand your leader's context, pressures, and objectives. Effective upward leadership begins with empathy—not in the emotional sense, but in the strategic understanding of what drives decision-making at higher levels. Leaders at the top face constraints and considerations that may not be visible from below, including board expectations, competitive dynamics, regulatory pressures, and strategic imperatives that transcend individual departments or initiatives.

The second element involves developing credibility and trust over time. Useem emphasizes that the capacity to influence upward is not established in moments of crisis but through consistent demonstration of competence, reliability, and sound judgment. Those who have proven themselves as capable executors of assigned tasks, who deliver results and demonstrate understanding of broader organizational objectives, earn the credibility necessary to shape decisions. This credibility functions as currency that can be spent when circumstances require challenging authority or advocating for unconventional approaches.

The third component focuses on choosing the right moments and methods for upward influence. Timing is critical—raising concerns too early, before sufficient evidence exists, can undermine credibility, while waiting too long may allow problems to metastasize beyond remedy. Useem advises that effective upward leaders develop sensitivity to organizational rhythms, recognizing when leaders are most receptive to input and when they are committed to existing courses of action. Similarly, the method of communication matters enormously. Some situations call for direct, private conversations; others require formal presentations with supporting data; still others benefit from coalition-building with peers before approaching superiors.

The framework also incorporates the principle of offering solutions rather than merely identifying problems. Useem notes that leaders at all levels are overwhelmed with challenges and obstacles. Those who lead up effectively distinguish themselves by bringing not just warnings but viable alternatives. This solution-oriented approach demonstrates strategic thinking and reduces the burden on senior leaders, making it more likely that concerns will be taken seriously and acted upon. The most persuasive upward communications combine clear problem identification with thoughtful analysis of options and recommendations for action.

The Mutual Influence Principle

Central to Useem's framework is what can be termed the "mutual influence principle"—the recognition that effective organizational performance emerges from reciprocal rather than unidirectional influence. This principle acknowledges that while hierarchical authority establishes formal decision-making rights, practical wisdom and critical information are distributed throughout organizations. The healthiest organizational cultures are those where influence flows freely across hierarchical boundaries in all directions, creating what Useem describes as a "leadership constellation" rather than a leadership pyramid.

This principle challenges deeply embedded assumptions about authority and expertise. Traditional organizational models presume that those at higher levels possess superior knowledge, judgment, and perspective—an assumption that may have held some validity in stable environments with slow-changing technologies but becomes increasingly problematic in dynamic, complex contexts. Useem argues that in contemporary organizations, expertise is specialized and distributed. The engineer developing a new product may understand technical possibilities better than the CEO; the sales representative may grasp customer needs more clearly than the marketing vice president; the factory worker may see operational inefficiencies invisible from the executive suite.

The mutual influence principle requires both upward and downward adaptation. Those in subordinate positions must develop the skills and courage to influence upward, while those in senior positions must cultivate receptivity to input from below. Useem emphasizes that senior leaders play a critical role in either enabling or suppressing upward leadership through their responses to challenges and alternative viewpoints. Leaders who punish bearers of bad news or dismiss concerns from subordinates quickly create cultures where information flows upward only when filtered and sanitized. Conversely, leaders who genuinely solicit diverse perspectives, who ask probing questions, and who demonstrate that they value candid input create environments where leading up flourishes.

Implementing this principle requires structural and cultural changes. Structurally, organizations can create mechanisms for upward influence, such as skip-level meetings, anonymous feedback channels, cross-functional task forces, and after-action reviews that invite candid assessment from participants at all levels. Culturally, the shift is more challenging, requiring sustained effort to overcome ingrained deference to authority and fear of reprisal. Useem provides examples of organizations that have successfully embedded mutual influence in their operating systems, demonstrating that when individuals at all levels feel empowered and obligated to lead up, organizational performance improves measurably.

The Constructive Challenge Framework

Among the most delicate aspects of leading up is the practice of constructive challenge—disagreeing with or questioning decisions made by those in positions of authority. Useem devotes considerable attention to this framework because it represents both the highest value and greatest risk of upward leadership. Constructive challenge is distinguished from mere contrarianism or reflexive negativity by its motivation, preparation, and execution. The goal is not to obstruct or demonstrate intellectual superiority but to prevent errors, improve decisions, and serve organizational interests.

The framework for constructive challenge begins with careful assessment of whether intervention is warranted. Not every suboptimal decision requires challenge; organizations would grind to a halt if every judgment were subjected to extensive debate. Useem suggests that challenge is most appropriate when the stakes are significant, when those in positions of authority may lack critical information available to subordinates, when ethical concerns arise, or when decisions violate strategic principles or organizational values. This discernment—knowing when to challenge and when to execute even when harboring reservations—is a hallmark of mature organizational citizenship.

When challenge is warranted, preparation is essential. Useem emphasizes the importance of assembling facts, developing alternative analyses, and anticipating counterarguments before engaging senior leaders. Effective upward challengers do their homework, ensuring that their concerns rest on solid foundations rather than intuition or incomplete information. They also consider second- and third-order consequences of their recommendations, demonstrating strategic thinking that encompasses implementation challenges and unintended effects. This thorough preparation distinguishes serious challenge from casual criticism.

The execution of constructive challenge requires what Useem describes as "respectful assertiveness"—a communication style that balances deference to authority with firm advocacy for alternative viewpoints. This involves framing challenges in terms of shared objectives rather than personal disagreement, using language that invites dialogue rather than triggering defensiveness, and demonstrating willingness to be persuaded by superior arguments. Useem provides numerous examples from military, corporate, and nonprofit contexts where individuals successfully challenged flawed decisions by their superiors, often preventing catastrophic outcomes. In each case, the effective challengers combined substantive rigor with interpersonal sensitivity, making it easier for those in authority to revise their positions without losing face.

The Responsibility to Act Framework

Perhaps the most morally resonant element of Useem's framework is what he describes as the "responsibility to act"—the ethical obligation to lead up when circumstances demand it. This principle asserts that individuals who perceive significant threats or opportunities have a duty to bring them to the attention of those who can respond, regardless of formal role or hierarchical position. The responsibility to act transforms leading up from an optional skill into a moral imperative, particularly in contexts where silence could result in harm to stakeholders, customers, employees, or the organization itself.

Useem illustrates this framework with powerful examples from both successful interventions and tragic failures where individuals remained silent despite recognizing serious problems. In cases like the Challenger disaster or various corporate frauds, people at lower levels possessed information that could have prevented catastrophe but failed to escalate their concerns effectively. These cases demonstrate that hierarchical cultures that discourage upward communication don't just reduce organizational effectiveness—they enable preventable disasters. The responsibility to act framework places moral obligation on individuals to overcome institutional and psychological barriers to speaking up.

This framework also addresses the personal costs and risks associated with leading up. Useem acknowledges that challenging authority, delivering bad news, or advocating for unpopular positions can threaten job security, damage relationships, and derail careers. He doesn't minimize these risks but argues that certain circumstances demand action despite potential consequences. The framework helps individuals assess when organizational or stakeholder interests are sufficiently important to justify personal risk, and it provides guidance for managing that risk through careful preparation, coalition-building, and strategic communication.

Critically, the responsibility to act framework includes knowing when to escalate beyond one's immediate superior. Useem describes situations where initial attempts to lead up are rebuffed or ignored, requiring individuals to consider whether the issue warrants going around their direct manager to higher levels or even to external authorities. This is perhaps the most fraught aspect of upward leadership, as it violates chain-of-command norms and can be perceived as disloyalty. However, Useem argues that in cases involving ethical violations, legal concerns, or threats to organizational survival, the responsibility to stakeholders supersedes loyalty to individual managers. The framework provides criteria for making these difficult judgments and guidance for navigating the process in ways that maintain integrity while minimizing collateral damage.

Strengths of the Work

Michael Useem's "Leading Up" presents a compelling and thoroughly researched examination of upward leadership that fills a significant gap in leadership literature. One of the book's most notable strengths is its evidence-based approach, drawing from diverse real-world examples spanning military operations, corporate environments, and mountaineering expeditions. Useem's background as a Wharton professor gives him access to extensive case studies and research, which he skillfully weaves throughout the narrative to support his central thesis that leadership is not confined to those at the top of organizational hierarchies.

The book excels in its practical applicability. Rather than offering abstract theories, Useem provides concrete frameworks and actionable strategies that readers can immediately implement in their professional lives. His analysis of the 1996 Mount Everest disaster, for instance, doesn't merely recount the tragedy but extracts specific lessons about when and how to challenge authority figures. This case study demonstrates how guides and experienced climbers failed to "lead up" effectively when they observed dangerous decision-making, resulting in catastrophic consequences. The multifaceted examination of this single event from various leadership perspectives provides readers with a nuanced understanding of upward leadership dynamics under extreme pressure.

Another significant strength is Useem's balanced perspective on authority and hierarchy. He doesn't advocate for anarchic challenge of leadership but instead promotes informed, constructive engagement with superiors. The book carefully distinguishes between undermining authority and strengthening organizational decision-making through upward influence. This nuance is particularly evident in his discussion of military examples, where he shows how effective subordinates can raise concerns while maintaining command structure integrity. The case of the USS Benfold under Commander Mike Abrashoff illustrates how creating an environment that welcomes upward leadership can transform organizational performance without compromising hierarchical authority.

Useem's writing style itself deserves recognition as a strength. He presents complex organizational concepts in accessible language without oversimplifying the material. The narrative structure, which alternates between storytelling and analysis, keeps readers engaged while ensuring that theoretical points are anchored in memorable examples. His use of diverse settings—from corporate boardrooms to battlefield decisions—demonstrates the universality of upward leadership principles across contexts, making the book relevant to a broad audience regardless of their professional sector.

The book also addresses the psychological and political dimensions of leading up with sophistication. Useem acknowledges the personal risks involved in challenging authority and provides guidance on building the credibility, timing, and communication skills necessary to influence effectively. His discussion of how to prepare oneself for upward leadership through competence development, relationship building, and understanding organizational culture provides a comprehensive roadmap for aspiring leaders at all levels.

Limitations and Weaknesses

Despite its many strengths, "Leading Up" contains several limitations that warrant critical examination. First, the book occasionally suffers from a Western-centric, particularly American, perspective on leadership and organizational culture. Most examples draw from U.S. military operations, American corporations, and Western mountaineering expeditions. This cultural narrowness limits the book's applicability in organizations with different cultural values regarding hierarchy, authority, and communication. In many Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures, for instance, the direct challenging of superiors that Useem sometimes advocates might be considered inappropriate or counterproductive, regardless of the merit of one's concerns.

The cultural limitation becomes particularly apparent when examining power distance—the extent to which less powerful members of organizations accept and expect unequal power distribution. Useem's frameworks assume a relatively low power distance context where subordinates feel empowered to speak up. He doesn't adequately address how upward leadership principles might need modification in high power distance cultures or provide strategies for navigating these more hierarchical environments. This oversight diminishes the book's value for international readers or those working in multicultural organizations.

Another weakness lies in the book's treatment of gender and diversity issues in upward leadership. Written in the early 2000s, "Leading Up" doesn't sufficiently address how gender, race, and other identity factors affect one's ability to lead up effectively. Research has consistently shown that women and minorities face different standards and greater risks when challenging authority or offering dissenting opinions. The book's examples feature predominantly white male leaders, and it doesn't explore how individuals from underrepresented groups might need different strategies or face additional barriers when attempting to influence upward. This blind spot is significant because the dynamics of credibility, perception, and risk that Useem discusses operate differently across demographic lines.

The book also exhibits some selection bias in its case studies. Useem primarily presents examples where leading up either succeeded or where its absence led to disaster, but he gives less attention to situations where attempts at upward leadership failed despite being well-intentioned and skillfully executed. This creates a potentially misleading impression that following his guidelines will consistently produce positive results. In reality, organizational politics, personality conflicts, and structural barriers can cause upward leadership attempts to fail or even backfire, potentially damaging careers. A more balanced presentation would include analysis of failed attempts at leading up and guidance on recognizing when such efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Additionally, some critics have noted that the book's prescriptions sometimes seem contradictory or context-dependent without clear guidance on how to navigate these tensions. For example, Useem emphasizes both the importance of timing and the necessity of speaking up about critical issues, but he doesn't always provide clear frameworks for determining when urgency should override concerns about timing. Similarly, the balance between building relationships before challenging superiors and the need for immediate action in crisis situations receives insufficient attention in terms of decision-making criteria.

Contemporary Relevance and Application

More than two decades after its publication, "Leading Up" maintains significant relevance while also revealing some dated aspects that require recontextualization for contemporary readers. The fundamental premise—that leadership responsibility extends to all organizational levels—has become increasingly accepted in modern management theory and practice. Today's flatter organizational structures, emphasis on psychological safety, and distributed leadership models align well with Useem's core arguments, suggesting his work was somewhat ahead of its time.

The book's relevance has actually intensified in certain respects. The rapid pace of change, technological disruption, and complexity of modern business environments make upward flow of information and ideas more critical than ever. Senior leaders cannot possibly possess all the expertise needed to navigate digital transformation, sustainability challenges, or rapidly evolving market conditions. Useem's argument that organizations must tap into the knowledge and initiative of people at all levels has become not just good practice but essential for survival. His case studies about the importance of ground-level intelligence and the dangers of hierarchical information filtering resonate powerfully in an era of big data and artificial intelligence, where frontline employees often have insights that algorithms and executives miss.

The contemporary workplace emphasis on psychological safety and inclusive leadership also vindicates many of Useem's arguments. Research by Amy Edmondson and others has demonstrated that organizations where employees feel safe speaking up perform better and innovate more effectively. Useem's practical guidance on creating environments receptive to upward leadership anticipated this research and provides concrete tools for leaders seeking to build such cultures. His frameworks for how senior leaders can invite and reward constructive challenge remain valuable resources for contemporary managers.

However, several contemporary developments require readers to extend and adapt Useem's framework. The rise of remote and hybrid work has fundamentally altered the dynamics of upward leadership. Many of the relationship-building and timing strategies Useem recommends were developed with face-to-face interaction in mind. Leading up effectively through video calls, emails, and collaboration platforms requires adaptation of his principles. The reduced informal interaction and non-verbal communication cues in virtual environments make some aspects of upward leadership more challenging, while digital tools can sometimes make it easier to document concerns and share information broadly.

Social media and digital transparency have also changed the landscape of organizational influence. Employees now have unprecedented ability to make their voices heard both internally and externally, sometimes bypassing traditional hierarchical channels entirely. This reality creates both opportunities and risks that Useem's framework doesn't fully address. Whistleblowing platforms, anonymous feedback tools, and public social media can amplify employee voices, but they can also undermine the constructive, relationship-based approach to leading up that Useem advocates. Contemporary readers must grapple with questions about when traditional upward leadership channels should be supplemented or replaced with newer mechanisms.

The growing emphasis on stakeholder capitalism and corporate social responsibility also expands the scope of upward leadership. Employees increasingly feel obligated to speak up not just about operational or strategic issues but about ethical concerns, environmental impact, and social justice matters. Useem's framework provides a foundation for such advocacy, but contemporary leaders must navigate more complex terrain where organizational decisions have broader societal implications and where employees may feel accountable to values beyond corporate success.

Comparison with Related Leadership Literature

Positioning "Leading Up" within the broader leadership literature reveals both its distinctive contributions and areas where other works provide complementary or alternative perspectives. Useem's focus on upward influence distinguishes his work from traditional leadership books that concentrate on how those in authority should lead downward. In this respect, "Leading Up" aligns with and extends the work of scholars like Robert Kelley, whose "The Power of Followership" similarly argues that effective followership is an active, critical function rather than passive obedience. However, Useem goes further by providing specific frameworks and extensive case studies that translate the concept into practical guidance.

Compared to Stephen Covey's "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," which takes a principle-centered approach to personal effectiveness, Useem's work is more situationally grounded and organizationally focused. While Covey emphasizes character development and universal principles applicable across life domains, Useem concentrates specifically on navigating organizational hierarchies and influencing decision-makers. Both works value integrity and competence, but Useem provides more tactical guidance on the political and strategic dimensions of organizational life. His approach is less prescriptive about values and more descriptive about what actually works in complex organizational contexts.

Jim Collins's "Good to Great" offers an interesting point of comparison regarding organizational excellence. Collins identifies "Level 5 Leadership" at the top of organizations as critical to sustained greatness, but Useem's work implicitly argues that organizations also need what might be termed "Level 5 Followership"—subordinates who combine personal humility with professional will to improve organizational outcomes even when it requires challenging superiors. The two perspectives are complementary: Collins describes what great top leaders look like, while Useem describes how people throughout the organization can contribute to greatness by leading up effectively. Together, they suggest that organizational excellence requires leadership excellence at all levels, not just at the apex.

In comparison to more recent works on psychological safety, such as Amy Edmondson's "The Fearless Organization," Useem's book focuses more on individual agency and less on organizational culture. Edmondson emphasizes what leaders must do to create environments where speaking up is safe and encouraged, while Useem concentrates on what individuals can do to lead up effectively even in imperfect environments. This difference in emphasis reflects their different primary audiences: Edmondson writes primarily for senior leaders seeking to transform culture, while Useem writes for anyone in an organization who wants to exercise leadership regardless of their position. Both perspectives are valuable, and an organization would ideally cultivate both the cultural conditions Edmondson advocates and the individual capabilities Useem develops.

When compared to Herminia Ibarra's work on professional identity and leadership transitions, particularly "Act Like a Leader, Think Like a Leader," Useem's approach is more immediately applicable to one's current role. Ibarra focuses on how people transition into leadership positions and develop leadership identities through action and experimentation. Useem, conversely, argues that people can exercise leadership without formal authority and without necessarily aspiring to traditional leadership roles. His framework is thus valuable for both those seeking advancement and those who want to contribute leadership without climbing the hierarchy—an increasingly common preference in contemporary workplaces where not everyone desires management responsibility.

In the realm of organizational change and influence, Useem's work relates to but differs from books like "Influencer" by Joseph Grenny and colleagues. While both address how to drive change and influence others, "Influencer" provides a more systematic behavior change methodology applicable across contexts, whereas Useem specifically addresses the unique challenges of influencing upward within hierarchical structures. The power dynamics, risks, and strategies involved in leading up differ significantly from lateral or downward influence, and Useem's specialized focus provides depth that more general influence frameworks cannot match.

Impact on Leadership Theory and Practice

Since its publication, "Leading Up" has exerted considerable influence on both academic leadership theory and practical organizational development. The book helped legitimize and popularize the concept that leadership is a function rather than a position—an idea that has become increasingly mainstream in contemporary leadership discourse. While Useem certainly wasn't the first to propose that leadership can come from anywhere in an organization, his systematic examination of upward leadership and his compelling case studies gave the concept credibility and practical grounding that advanced its acceptance.

In academic circles, "Leading Up" contributed to a broader scholarly shift toward examining leadership as a distributed, relational phenomenon rather than as an individual attribute of those in authority. Subsequent research on shared leadership, collective leadership, and leadership across boundaries has built upon foundations that Useem helped establish. His work demonstrated that valuable insights could come from studying leadership from the perspective of subordinates, opening new avenues for research. Graduate programs in organizational behavior and leadership increasingly incorporate upward leadership concepts into their curricula, often drawing directly on Useem's frameworks and cases.

The book's impact on leadership development practices in organizations has been substantial. Many corporate leadership programs now include modules on leading without authority, influencing upward, and speaking truth to power—concepts that were less common in leadership training before "Leading Up" brought them to prominence. Useem's frameworks for building credibility, choosing appropriate timing, and communicating effectively with superiors have been adapted into training curricula across industries. Organizations ranging from Fortune 500 companies to military institutions to non-profits have incorporated his ideas into their leadership development initiatives.

Particularly noteworthy is the book's influence on military leadership education. The U.S. military services have increasingly emphasized the importance of subordinates questioning orders when they observe problems or have better information—a shift that Useem's work both documented and encouraged. His analysis of military cases where failure to lead up resulted in tactical or strategic failures has been used in military academies and officer training programs to illustrate the responsibility of subordinates to provide input even within hierarchical command structures. This represents a subtle but significant cultural shift in institutions traditionally focused on command and obedience.

The concept of "leading up" has also influenced how organizations think about succession planning and talent development. Rather than identifying future leaders solely by their performance in managing downward, forward-thinking organizations now also assess how candidates influence upward and laterally. The ability to challenge constructively, provide valuable input to decision-makers, and improve organizational outcomes from non-leadership positions is increasingly recognized as predictive of future executive success. This broader conception of leadership capability has implications for talent identification, development, and promotion decisions.

However, the gap between theory and practice remains significant. While many organizations espouse values of empowerment and voice, the actual implementation of cultures that genuinely reward effective upward leadership remains inconsistent. Despite the influence of Useem's ideas, many employees still face retaliation or career consequences for challenging authority, even when done constructively. This suggests that while "Leading Up" has influenced what organizations say about leadership, it has had more limited success in changing the deeper power dynamics and cultural patterns that inhibit upward influence. The persistence of hierarchical organizational cultures resistant to upward leadership indicates that Useem's work, while influential, has not fully transformed organizational reality to match his vision.

The book's long-term significance may ultimately rest on its contribution to democratizing leadership as a concept. By arguing persuasively that leadership responsibility extends throughout organizations and providing practical tools for exercising that responsibility, Useem has empowered countless individuals to see themselves as leaders regardless of their title or position. This conceptual shift—from leadership as something done by designated leaders to leadership as something everyone can and should practice—represents "Leading Up's" most enduring contribution to both theory and practice.

Book Fundamentals

What is the main concept of Leading Up by Michael Useem?

Leading Up introduces the critical concept of upward leadership, which is the ability to influence and lead those in positions of authority above you in an organizational hierarchy. Michael Useem argues that effective leadership is not just about managing subordinates but also about guiding, advising, and sometimes challenging superiors. The book emphasizes that employees at all levels have a responsibility to lead up when they possess important information, expertise, or perspectives that their bosses need to make better decisions. Through numerous case studies from business, military, and political contexts, Useem demonstrates that organizations succeed when individuals courageously share critical insights with those above them, even when it involves risk or discomfort.

Who is Michael Useem and why did he write this book?

Michael Useem is a professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and director of the school's Center for Leadership and Change Management. He is a renowned expert on leadership, having authored several influential books including "The Leadership Moment" and "The Go Point." Useem wrote Leading Up based on extensive research, interviews, and observations of leadership failures and successes across various sectors. His motivation stemmed from witnessing numerous organizational disasters that could have been prevented if employees had effectively led up to their superiors. Drawing from his academic expertise and real-world consulting experience, Useem created this guide to help individuals understand how to navigate the delicate balance between respecting authority and providing crucial upward guidance.

What are the key principles of leading up according to Useem?

Useem identifies several fundamental principles for effective upward leadership. First, individuals must overcome the natural reluctance to challenge authority and recognize leading up as a professional duty. Second, timing and approach matter significantly—choosing the right moment and method to convey critical information to superiors. Third, upward leaders must build credibility through demonstrated competence and reliability before their influence attempts will be taken seriously. Fourth, effective leading up requires understanding your boss's pressures, constraints, and decision-making style. Fifth, upward leaders must frame their messages in terms that align with organizational goals rather than personal interests. Finally, Useem emphasizes that leading up sometimes requires moral courage, particularly when pointing out serious problems or ethical concerns that superiors may not want to hear.

What are some real-world examples used in the book?

Leading Up features compelling examples from diverse settings. One prominent case is the 1996 Mount Everest disaster, where experienced climbers failed to effectively challenge their expedition leader's poor decisions, resulting in tragic deaths. Useem also examines the space shuttle Challenger explosion, where engineers failed to adequately communicate the risks of launching in cold weather to NASA leadership. From the business world, he discusses cases involving investment decisions, corporate restructuring, and strategic pivots where subordinates either successfully influenced leadership or failed to do so with devastating consequences. Military examples include battlefield decisions where junior officers either effectively advised commanders or remained silent. These varied examples demonstrate that leading up principles apply across all organizational contexts and that the stakes can range from financial losses to loss of life.

Is Leading Up only relevant for corporate environments?

No, Leading Up has broad applicability far beyond corporate settings. While Useem includes numerous business examples, the book's principles apply to any hierarchical organization, including military units, government agencies, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, healthcare facilities, and even family businesses. The fundamental challenge of communicating critical information upward exists wherever authority structures exist. For instance, nurses leading up to doctors, junior military officers advising generals, teachers providing feedback to principals, or policy analysts briefing elected officials all face similar dynamics. Useem intentionally draws examples from multiple sectors to illustrate the universal nature of upward leadership challenges. The book's relevance extends to anyone who works within an organizational structure and recognizes the need to influence decision-makers above them for the greater good of the mission or organization.

Practical Implementation

How do I start leading up in my current position?

Begin by building a foundation of credibility through excellent performance in your current role. Useem emphasizes that effective upward leadership starts with demonstrating competence and reliability in your assigned responsibilities. Next, invest time in understanding your boss's priorities, pressures, and preferred communication style. Start small by offering helpful insights or information on low-stakes issues to practice the skill. Document important concerns or observations with facts and data rather than just opinions. When you do approach your supervisor, choose appropriate timing—avoid crisis moments unless the issue itself is urgent. Frame your message in terms of organizational goals and your boss's interests rather than your personal preferences. Request brief meetings specifically for discussing your observations, showing respect for their time. Most importantly, approach leading up as offering support and valuable perspective rather than criticism or challenge.

What should I do if my boss doesn't respond well to being led up?

Useem acknowledges that some managers are more receptive to upward leadership than others. If your initial attempts are rebuffed, first reflect on your approach—was your timing poor, your message unclear, or your tone inappropriate? Adjust your strategy by perhaps choosing different issues, using different communication channels, or involving allies who might reinforce your message. Consider whether your boss's resistance stems from the message itself or the delivery method. Some leaders respond better to written briefings than verbal conversations, or vice versa. If resistance continues despite good-faith efforts, you may need to escalate truly critical issues through appropriate channels, though this carries risks. Document your attempts to communicate important information. In some cases, persistent inability to lead up may indicate a fundamentally dysfunctional relationship or organization, which might warrant considering other employment options, particularly if the issues involve ethical concerns or significant risks.

How can I build credibility to lead up more effectively?

Building credibility is foundational to successful upward leadership. Useem stresses that credibility comes from consistently delivering excellent work, meeting commitments, and demonstrating expertise. Develop deep knowledge in your area of responsibility so your insights carry weight. Build a track record of sound judgment by thoroughly researching issues before raising concerns. When you do lead up, ensure your facts are accurate and your analysis is rigorous—one instance of crying wolf or presenting sloppy information can damage credibility significantly. Show loyalty to your organization and boss by supporting their legitimate goals and decisions. Demonstrate discretion by handling sensitive information appropriately and choosing private rather than public forums for raising concerns. Seek opportunities to solve problems rather than just identifying them. Over time, establish yourself as a trusted advisor who provides value, thinks strategically, and has the organization's best interests at heart.

What communication techniques work best when leading up?

Useem recommends several communication strategies for effective upward leadership. First, use the "situation-complication-resolution" framework: describe the current situation, explain the complication or problem, and propose potential resolutions. This demonstrates that you're solution-oriented, not just complaining. Second, quantify concerns with data whenever possible—concrete numbers and evidence carry more weight than vague impressions. Third, acknowledge the constraints and pressures your boss faces, showing you understand their perspective. Fourth, present options rather than ultimatums, allowing your superior to maintain decision-making authority. Fifth, choose the right medium—some messages work better face-to-face, others in writing. Sixth, rehearse important conversations, especially on sensitive topics. Seventh, use "we" language that emphasizes shared goals rather than positioning yourself against your boss. Finally, follow up appropriately without becoming a pest, understanding that leaders juggle competing priorities.

How do I know when an issue is important enough to lead up?

Determining which issues warrant leading up requires judgment and perspective. Useem suggests considering several factors: Does the issue significantly impact organizational goals, customer outcomes, financial performance, or employee safety? Does it involve ethical concerns or legal compliance? Do you possess unique information or expertise that your boss lacks? Are there potential consequences for inaction? Is the decision reversible or irreversible? Not every disagreement or concern merits leading up—save your credibility for truly important matters. Consider the magnitude of potential harm versus the political capital you'll expend raising the issue. Trivial complaints or matters of personal preference generally don't justify the effort and risk. However, don't underestimate the importance of issues just because they're uncomfortable to raise. Useem emphasizes that truly critical matters—those involving significant risk, ethical problems, or major strategic errors—demand upward leadership even when it's difficult.

What are the risks of leading up and how can I mitigate them?

Leading up involves real risks that Useem doesn't minimize. You might be perceived as insubordinate, disloyal, or difficult. Your relationship with your boss could suffer, potentially affecting your career advancement or even job security. You might be wrong in your assessment, damaging your credibility. Despite these risks, Useem argues that not leading up when necessary carries even greater dangers—to the organization and your own integrity. To mitigate risks, ensure your facts are solid before raising concerns. Choose private settings rather than challenging bosses publicly. Frame issues as organizational concerns rather than personal grievances. Demonstrate respect for your supervisor's position and judgment. Build strong relationships before you need to deliver difficult messages. Document important communications professionally. Consider involving HR or other appropriate channels for serious ethical or legal issues. Accept that some risk is inherent in responsible leadership and that moral courage sometimes requires accepting personal costs for the greater good.

Advanced Concepts

What role does organizational culture play in leading up?

Organizational culture profoundly influences the effectiveness and safety of leading up. Useem emphasizes that some cultures actively encourage upward feedback and dissenting views, while others punish such behavior. In psychologically safe environments, employees feel comfortable challenging assumptions and sharing concerns without fear of retribution. These organizations typically outperform those with authoritarian or punitive cultures where bad news is suppressed. Leaders can shape culture by explicitly encouraging upward leadership, rewarding messengers who bring problems to light, and responding constructively to challenges. Conversely, toxic cultures develop when leaders shoot the messenger, ignore warnings, or surround themselves with yes-men. Useem argues that senior leaders bear responsibility for creating cultures where leading up is not only permitted but expected. Individuals must assess their organizational culture realistically when deciding how to lead up, recognizing that culture change often requires sustained effort from leadership.

How does leading up relate to organizational disasters and failures?

Useem demonstrates that many organizational disasters involve failures of upward leadership. The Challenger space shuttle explosion occurred partly because engineers failed to effectively communicate the severity of risks to decision-makers. The Mount Everest tragedy involved climbers who didn't forcefully challenge their leader's judgment despite recognizing dangerous conditions. Corporate scandals often feature employees who observed problems but didn't escalate concerns effectively. These disasters share common patterns: critical information existed at lower organizational levels, individuals recognized problems but failed to communicate urgently enough, and leaders either didn't listen or subordinates didn't speak up forcefully. Useem argues that effective leading up serves as an organizational immune system, identifying threats before they become catastrophic. When this immune system fails—whether due to cultural suppression, individual timidity, or communication breakdowns—organizations become vulnerable to preventable disasters. Understanding these failure patterns helps individuals recognize their responsibility to lead up on critical matters.

What is the relationship between leading up and followership?

Useem challenges the false dichotomy between leading and following, arguing that effective followers are also leaders. Leading up represents the intersection of these roles—where individuals exercise leadership while in subordinate positions. Good followership isn't passive obedience but active engagement that includes providing honest feedback, offering expertise, and challenging poor decisions when necessary. The best followers understand their leaders' goals and help achieve them, which sometimes means preventing leaders from making mistakes. This conception of followership requires courage, initiative, and judgment—the same qualities associated with traditional leadership. Useem suggests that organizations need people skilled in both upward and downward leadership, able to lead when appropriate regardless of their position in the hierarchy. This perspective democratizes leadership, making it everyone's responsibility rather than the exclusive domain of those with formal authority. It also prepares future senior leaders by developing their judgment and courage in lower-stakes situations.

How do power dynamics affect the ability to lead up?

Power dynamics create inherent challenges for upward leadership that Useem analyzes extensively. Subordinates depend on superiors for resources, evaluations, promotions, and job security, creating asymmetric vulnerability. This power imbalance can inhibit honest communication, as employees fear career consequences from displeasing bosses. Psychological research on authority shows people's natural deference to those with power, sometimes even to irrational extremes. Cultural factors also matter—societies with high power distance norms make leading up more difficult. However, Useem argues that subordinates possess power sources too: expertise, information access, operational knowledge, and moral authority. Effective upward leaders leverage these power bases strategically. They also recognize that their boss's power comes with constraints—accountability to their own superiors, dependence on subordinates for execution, and vulnerability to organizational failure. Understanding these mutual dependencies helps subordinates navigate power dynamics more effectively, approaching leading up as providing valuable service rather than challenging authority.

What ethical obligations do employees have regarding leading up?

Useem argues that leading up carries ethical dimensions beyond organizational effectiveness. Professionals have obligations to stakeholders—customers, shareholders, citizens, or patients—that sometimes supersede loyalty to immediate supervisors. When leaders make decisions that could harm these stakeholders, subordinates with relevant knowledge have an ethical duty to speak up. This responsibility intensifies in situations involving safety risks, legal violations, or ethical breaches. Useem contends that remaining silent when you possess information that could prevent harm makes you complicit in the consequences. However, ethical leading up requires wisdom in determining which issues truly warrant escalation versus normal disagreements. It also demands appropriate channels—internal reporting systems, compliance offices, or in extreme cases, external whistleblowing. The ethics of leading up extend to how you raise concerns, requiring honesty, accuracy, and good faith rather than personal vendettas or careerism. Useem emphasizes that maintaining personal integrity sometimes requires the courage to lead up despite career risks.

Comparison & Evaluation

How does Leading Up differ from other leadership books?

Leading Up occupies a unique niche in leadership literature by focusing specifically on upward influence rather than the more common emphasis on leading subordinates. While most leadership books address how to manage teams, motivate employees, or execute strategy from positions of authority, Useem examines leadership from the perspective of those without formal power. This inverted approach makes the book particularly valuable for early-career and mid-level professionals. Unlike theoretical leadership texts, Leading Up grounds its lessons in concrete case studies from diverse settings. Compared to books on influence or persuasion, it specifically addresses the unique dynamics and ethics of influencing superiors. The book also differs from management books focused on creating receptive organizational cultures by instead empowering individuals to lead up even in less-than-ideal environments. This practical, bottom-up perspective complements traditional top-down leadership literature, creating a more complete picture of how effective organizations function.

What are the strengths of Useem's approach in this book?

Useem's methodology demonstrates several notable strengths. His use of diverse, compelling case studies from business, military, and adventure settings makes abstract principles concrete and memorable. The book's research foundation combines academic rigor with practical accessibility, avoiding both ivory-tower abstraction and superficial anecdotes. Useem's balanced treatment acknowledges both the importance of leading up and its genuine risks, avoiding na?ve prescriptions. His interdisciplinary approach draws insights from psychology, organizational behavior, history, and ethics, enriching the analysis. The writing is clear and engaging, making complex organizational dynamics understandable to non-specialist readers. Useem's credibility as a Wharton professor and leadership consultant lends authority to his recommendations. The book provides actionable guidance while respecting readers' intelligence to adapt principles to their specific contexts. Perhaps most importantly, Useem addresses a genuine gap in leadership development, giving voice to the frustrations many employees feel when they see problems but lack frameworks for addressing them upward.

What are potential limitations or criticisms of the book?

Despite its strengths, Leading Up has some limitations. Critics note that the book's advice assumes a certain baseline of organizational rationality and good faith that may not exist in truly dysfunctional or toxic environments. The case studies, while illustrative, sometimes involve extreme situations (disasters, military combat) that may feel remote from typical workplace challenges. Some readers might find that Useem underestimates the career risks of leading up, particularly for employees in precarious positions or discriminatory environments where challenging authority carries disproportionate consequences. The book offers limited guidance for situations where leading up fails despite good-faith efforts. Cultural context receives relatively light treatment—upward leadership norms vary significantly across national cultures, industries, and organizational types. The work could benefit from more attention to gender and racial dynamics in leading up, as marginalized employees often face different risks and reception when challenging authority. Finally, some practical readers might want more tactical scripts and templates for specific leading-up conversations.