The “Impress Upward, Punch Downward” Pattern
Some workplace behaviors don’t begin at work.
They begin much earlier. Quietly shaped in childhood, in classrooms, in families, in systems where authority sits at the top and approval flows downward. Many of us, at some point, learn a simple equation: please those in power, and you’ll be safe… perhaps even successful. At the same time, we also learn to compete laterally and enforce compliance downward. Sometimes asserting control where we can, especially when we have little of it ourselves.
Pavel Kolinko, California based developer of AI tools based on Psychology and Organizational Dynamics describes one such pattern as “impress upward, punch downward.” While it shows up in organizations, its roots often lie in these early relational templates. A child who learns to win approval from teachers or parents by being “good,” “prepared,” or “agreeable” may also learn, consciously or not, to displace frustration elsewhere on siblings with less power.
Fast forward to the workplace, and the pattern feels familiar.
Upward, the individual is polished, responsive, and aligned. They anticipate expectations, manage communication carefully, and ensure their work is visible. They are often seen as high performers, reliable and composed under pressure. Senior leaders experience them as competent and easy to trust.
Downward, however, the experience can be very different. Teams may encounter a leader who is quick to push pressure but slow to provide support, who claims outcomes but distances themselves from challenges, or who gives feedback that is more evaluative than developmental. It may not always be aggressive or obvious. Often, it is subtle, an absence of advocacy, a lack of inclusion in decisions, or a tendency to pass accountability without sharing ownership.
The troubling part is not just the behavior. It is how well it survives and even thrives in organizations.
This is where our appraisal systems come into question.
Most performance evaluations are disproportionately influenced by what is visible to the manager’s manager. Business results, stakeholder updates, and executive presence tend to carry more weight than the lived experience of the team. As a result, the “impress upward” half of the pattern may get amplified and rewarded, while the “punch downward” half may remain underreported, sometimes even normalized.
From the boss’s lens, the leader is delivering. Targets are met. Communication is strong. There are no major escalations. But from the team’s lens, the story can feel very different. There may be reduced trust, lower psychological safety, and a gradual shift from ownership to mere compliance. People contribute, but cautiously and deliver without energy. And over time, some may even choose to disengage or leave the organization.
This creates a structural blind spot. Organizations believe they are rewarding performance, but they may actually be reinforcing a pattern that undermines long-term capability and culture.
What makes this especially complex is that the leader themselves may not see the disconnect. If their success has always been tied to managing upward effectively, and if that behavior continues to be rewarded, there is little incentive or even awareness to change.
Breaking this pattern requires more than individual reflection; it requires systemic correction.
Organizations need to broaden how they define and measure leadership. Performance cannot be assessed solely through outcomes and upward feedback. It must include how those outcomes are achieved and how teams experience their leaders. Mechanisms like multi-directional feedback, skip-level conversations etc are not just nice to have. They are essential to closing this gap.
More importantly, organizations must send a consistent signal that leadership is not about securing approval from above, but about enabling effectiveness below.
Because if we continue to reward only what is visible upward, we will keep promoting leaders who have mastered half the job and overlooking the half that matters most.
