Great perspective, Bette, especially for a toxic environment. Managing up shouldn’t be a drag. It shouldn’t be an afterthought either. In non toxic, but competitive environments, from my experience, promotions at the senior levels are based on how much comfort you can provide to your boss followed by job competence. The higher you are, the more important it is to keep the peace in and the noise out. If you are able to do this consistently and make your boss look good, your promotion is almost always guaranteed. You need to learn how to do this the right way without selling your soul or your values. It isn’t bad politics, it is excellent control over your moves!
I completely agree with this Vijaya. I think the issue is that the term has become synonymous with the idea of turning a bad situation into something more positive. But the lower you are in the organization, the less political capital you have. Managing up becomes really difficult when you have nothing to offer in return—or when your boss doesn’t respect your position. In that case, there’s not much “managing” you can actually do.
Happy Monday, Bette! As I’m reading this, I’m just wondering why all companies aren’t relentlessly focused on increasing employee production.
Then I remember what one of my marketing instructors told me during undergrad. He said when he was a consultant, he would meet with potential client and tell them. “I will tell you what I think the problem is. Are you okay with hearing that YOU are the problem?” I think this is why the efforts to increase employee productivity only go so far. Because as soon as someone above the employee has to change their behavior to improve the behavior of a worker, then the process breaks down. It’s the whole ‘are you willing to hear that you may be the problem’ all over again.
You’re absolutely right, Mack. This really starts with organizations promoting the right people in the first place. If they’re not willing to hold individuals accountable and take responsibility for finding the right people, making change becomes incredibly challenging.
Part of the struggle is that these behaviors run throughout the organization, not just with one manager, and that becomes a much bigger problem that is far more difficult to change.
I completely agree with this take. I’ve had to “manage up” multiple times in my career, and in all cases, I found that trying to fix a broken system only leads to burnout. When you have a solid manager who genuinely supports you, there’s no need to anticipate their every move constantly. But if you’re stuck with dysfunctional leadership, no amount of tweaking your approach will change the situation—it just adds extra emotional labor. Sometimes, the healthiest choice is recognizing the limits of managing and exploring other options.
It sounds like we’re completely on the same page here, Dinah. Of course, there’s always some degree of negotiation and compromise, but in toxic work environments, it turns into an emotional minefield. You find yourself constantly overextending, walking on eggshells, and just trying to stay out of the way of whatever's being thrown your way.
I recently hosted a webinar on curiosity and innovation, and it's interesting that a similar question was raised: "How do we help people in a position of management authority shift their mindset? Especially when said people are used to a: 'I know what's right' point of view?"
What I had suggested that there are some classic WIIFM dynamics at play; those who believe they're right do so because they're rewarded for their approaches. Thus instead of fighting against it, how do we fight WITH it?
I'm curious on your take: How would you change it? I noticed in another comment below that I think you said the example you shared was part of a higher education institution? I've been lecturing at a similar place for the past few months, and am starting to see where the limitations are within the system, so I'm fascinated by what's involved in changing the system.
Unfortunately, in a lot of higher education environments, there is a tremendous amount of politics at play. Many administrators come from teaching backgrounds and often have no real leadership experience. They're not given any training either. They earn a PhD and are then told, "Now go be a leader," even if their degree is in something like Liberal Arts. It’s a system that really sets people up to fail as leaders.
In some cases, the only way to make change is by playing the long game. The people I’ve seen successfully influence policies and procedures are often those who build strong relationships with their direct supervisors. If their boss has influence with higher-ups, they can sometimes push change through that channel. But just as often, there are top-down initiatives where no one has a say.
The other type I’ve seen—like the one I referenced in my article—is the bulldozer. They push through ideas without regard for others and often get rewarded for that behavior. In higher education, surprisingly, that approach can be admired and even encouraged. If your boss values that kind of behavior and you're wired differently, it’s going to be a tough road. At that point, your best bet may be to build alliances in other units and start scouting for another job.
Actually, you'll like this. One of the 'politics' / limitations for people not taking me as seriously is because I don't have *gasp* a PhD. And yet the ones who hold PhDs in management are doing anything but.
It strikes me that there's a massive cognitive bias that's weaved through the world of academia, which I suspect is because of the 'publish or perish' dynamic. So everything is looked at through the lens of academic research and writing.
Anyway, I'm trying a hybrid approach. I've got a small jackhammer that I'm using to chip away at the problems, and then using that to try and demonstrate that it's possible to change. I'll let you know how it goes!
The irony is not lost on me there, Scott. And you’re absolutely right—academia looks down upon people without PhDs in various positions. I worked in the flight department at my last university, and the dean was a captain but didn’t even have a master’s degree. He was constantly frustrated by that because administrators looked down upon him, even though he had reached the top rank as a pilot. So I feel your pain.
What you have going for you is real-world experience that the students will love. That’s really what they want. You can give them an inside look at what it’s really like, whereas most of these faculty can’t, because many of them went straight from undergraduate school to graduate school and have very little real-world experience. In my opinion, that’s the huge disconnect between students and learning in higher education. They’re frustrated by just the textbook cases—they want to hear the nitty-gritty, real-world stuff.
Interesting take. Sounds very painful. It clearly has influenced you. In my career I have had many temporary (on projects) and permanent bosses, the great majority who were fine. I certainly used “manage up” as a bundle of techniques, though to me again they are just the to and fro of relationships
I worked in higher education, where unfortunately, there was a lot of this kind of dysfunctional behavior. I agree with you that in a more functional environment, "managing up" is really just basic communication, interaction, and negotiation. But in dysfunctional or toxic settings, things like decision-making, hiring, and promotions don’t operate like normal interactions—they're political minefields. The people who actually do their jobs well often aren’t the ones who get promoted, so it becomes a very different kind of experience.
I get that. My wife also worked in Student Services and Financial Aid higher education for her entire career. Other than her initial experience which was very good her career certainly was filled with horrific people. Her last stop was particularly bad and highly dysfunctional, especially for students wanting financial aid.
She definitely knows then, David. In my opinion, financial aid is one of the worst departments to work in within higher ed, with the registrar’s office probably coming in next. And now, with how they’re dismantling the government and the Department of Education taking a major hit, financial aid is likely going to become even more brutal to work in.
Managing up should be simple. Effective stakeholder management can make everyone's work easier. But in a toxic environment it's the opposite, enabling dysfunctional behaviour. Quite right, Bette.
The truth is if you have a reasonable boss, you don't need to do a bunch of managing up. You work with them without needing to play a game of mental gymnastics and become a managerial contortionist to get things done.
The only way I ever broke free from managing up was to become the leader and even then it becomes a case of constantly managing expectations of senior leadership or clients
Yes, I don't think you ever necessarily escape it completely. But the constant finessing and walking on eggshells shouldn't outweigh the ability to do your job on a somewhat consistent basis.
It could certainly be part of it. And if you have a situation where your boss or organization is not totally dysfunctional, managing up becomes a bit more manageable. It's when you have really toxic workplace where it's pretty much impossible to effectively manage up without losing your mind.
Thanks for this alternative way of looking at managing up Bette. There is no doubt in my mind and based on my experience that managing up is also being aware of the human dynamics at play. Even in a positive, non toxic workplace, where managers care, there are decisions being made by others and it’s important to be aware of those dynamics. Whether it’s to get work done, propose new ways of doing things, business cases and of course career advancement.
I don’t disagree with that, Michelle. You do have to recognize that sometimes there are things at play outside your boss’s control, and no amount of “managing up” is going to change that. I think the issue is that the term has become synonymous with the idea of turning a bad situation into something more positive. But the lower you are in the organization, the less political capital you have. Managing up becomes really difficult when you have nothing to offer in return—or when your boss doesn’t respect your position. In that case, there’s not much “managing” you can actually do.
Exactly, it doesn’t make sense. Why should it be the employee’s job to teach the boss how to do their job? They’re not getting paid for that. If the employee has to show the boss how it’s done, why isn’t that employee in charge? It’s like blaming the victim.
I learned this lesson about Jenga in the workplace in a previous church where the toxic system would not budge. I have been much happier since leaving for another position (nearly 20 years ago). Thanks, Bette!
Managing up' in toxic workplaces = doing your job + your boss’s job + their emotional labor - all unpaid.
I remember in this one role, I kept a secret Slack channel with peers just to share basic operational updates our manager withheld. The absurdity of employees creating shadow systems to compensate for leadership failures should be a five alarm organizational warning.
Great perspective, Bette, especially for a toxic environment. Managing up shouldn’t be a drag. It shouldn’t be an afterthought either. In non toxic, but competitive environments, from my experience, promotions at the senior levels are based on how much comfort you can provide to your boss followed by job competence. The higher you are, the more important it is to keep the peace in and the noise out. If you are able to do this consistently and make your boss look good, your promotion is almost always guaranteed. You need to learn how to do this the right way without selling your soul or your values. It isn’t bad politics, it is excellent control over your moves!
I completely agree with this Vijaya. I think the issue is that the term has become synonymous with the idea of turning a bad situation into something more positive. But the lower you are in the organization, the less political capital you have. Managing up becomes really difficult when you have nothing to offer in return—or when your boss doesn’t respect your position. In that case, there’s not much “managing” you can actually do.
Happy Monday, Bette! As I’m reading this, I’m just wondering why all companies aren’t relentlessly focused on increasing employee production.
Then I remember what one of my marketing instructors told me during undergrad. He said when he was a consultant, he would meet with potential client and tell them. “I will tell you what I think the problem is. Are you okay with hearing that YOU are the problem?” I think this is why the efforts to increase employee productivity only go so far. Because as soon as someone above the employee has to change their behavior to improve the behavior of a worker, then the process breaks down. It’s the whole ‘are you willing to hear that you may be the problem’ all over again.
Most managers are not.
You’re absolutely right, Mack. This really starts with organizations promoting the right people in the first place. If they’re not willing to hold individuals accountable and take responsibility for finding the right people, making change becomes incredibly challenging.
Part of the struggle is that these behaviors run throughout the organization, not just with one manager, and that becomes a much bigger problem that is far more difficult to change.
I completely agree with this take. I’ve had to “manage up” multiple times in my career, and in all cases, I found that trying to fix a broken system only leads to burnout. When you have a solid manager who genuinely supports you, there’s no need to anticipate their every move constantly. But if you’re stuck with dysfunctional leadership, no amount of tweaking your approach will change the situation—it just adds extra emotional labor. Sometimes, the healthiest choice is recognizing the limits of managing and exploring other options.
It sounds like we’re completely on the same page here, Dinah. Of course, there’s always some degree of negotiation and compromise, but in toxic work environments, it turns into an emotional minefield. You find yourself constantly overextending, walking on eggshells, and just trying to stay out of the way of whatever's being thrown your way.
And thank you for re-stacking - appreciate it :)
Thanks for sharing Bette!
I recently hosted a webinar on curiosity and innovation, and it's interesting that a similar question was raised: "How do we help people in a position of management authority shift their mindset? Especially when said people are used to a: 'I know what's right' point of view?"
What I had suggested that there are some classic WIIFM dynamics at play; those who believe they're right do so because they're rewarded for their approaches. Thus instead of fighting against it, how do we fight WITH it?
I'm curious on your take: How would you change it? I noticed in another comment below that I think you said the example you shared was part of a higher education institution? I've been lecturing at a similar place for the past few months, and am starting to see where the limitations are within the system, so I'm fascinated by what's involved in changing the system.
Unfortunately, in a lot of higher education environments, there is a tremendous amount of politics at play. Many administrators come from teaching backgrounds and often have no real leadership experience. They're not given any training either. They earn a PhD and are then told, "Now go be a leader," even if their degree is in something like Liberal Arts. It’s a system that really sets people up to fail as leaders.
In some cases, the only way to make change is by playing the long game. The people I’ve seen successfully influence policies and procedures are often those who build strong relationships with their direct supervisors. If their boss has influence with higher-ups, they can sometimes push change through that channel. But just as often, there are top-down initiatives where no one has a say.
The other type I’ve seen—like the one I referenced in my article—is the bulldozer. They push through ideas without regard for others and often get rewarded for that behavior. In higher education, surprisingly, that approach can be admired and even encouraged. If your boss values that kind of behavior and you're wired differently, it’s going to be a tough road. At that point, your best bet may be to build alliances in other units and start scouting for another job.
Appreciate your thoughts!
Actually, you'll like this. One of the 'politics' / limitations for people not taking me as seriously is because I don't have *gasp* a PhD. And yet the ones who hold PhDs in management are doing anything but.
It strikes me that there's a massive cognitive bias that's weaved through the world of academia, which I suspect is because of the 'publish or perish' dynamic. So everything is looked at through the lens of academic research and writing.
Anyway, I'm trying a hybrid approach. I've got a small jackhammer that I'm using to chip away at the problems, and then using that to try and demonstrate that it's possible to change. I'll let you know how it goes!
The irony is not lost on me there, Scott. And you’re absolutely right—academia looks down upon people without PhDs in various positions. I worked in the flight department at my last university, and the dean was a captain but didn’t even have a master’s degree. He was constantly frustrated by that because administrators looked down upon him, even though he had reached the top rank as a pilot. So I feel your pain.
What you have going for you is real-world experience that the students will love. That’s really what they want. You can give them an inside look at what it’s really like, whereas most of these faculty can’t, because many of them went straight from undergraduate school to graduate school and have very little real-world experience. In my opinion, that’s the huge disconnect between students and learning in higher education. They’re frustrated by just the textbook cases—they want to hear the nitty-gritty, real-world stuff.
Interesting take. Sounds very painful. It clearly has influenced you. In my career I have had many temporary (on projects) and permanent bosses, the great majority who were fine. I certainly used “manage up” as a bundle of techniques, though to me again they are just the to and fro of relationships
I worked in higher education, where unfortunately, there was a lot of this kind of dysfunctional behavior. I agree with you that in a more functional environment, "managing up" is really just basic communication, interaction, and negotiation. But in dysfunctional or toxic settings, things like decision-making, hiring, and promotions don’t operate like normal interactions—they're political minefields. The people who actually do their jobs well often aren’t the ones who get promoted, so it becomes a very different kind of experience.
I get that. My wife also worked in Student Services and Financial Aid higher education for her entire career. Other than her initial experience which was very good her career certainly was filled with horrific people. Her last stop was particularly bad and highly dysfunctional, especially for students wanting financial aid.
She definitely knows then, David. In my opinion, financial aid is one of the worst departments to work in within higher ed, with the registrar’s office probably coming in next. And now, with how they’re dismantling the government and the Department of Education taking a major hit, financial aid is likely going to become even more brutal to work in.
Managing up should be simple. Effective stakeholder management can make everyone's work easier. But in a toxic environment it's the opposite, enabling dysfunctional behaviour. Quite right, Bette.
The truth is if you have a reasonable boss, you don't need to do a bunch of managing up. You work with them without needing to play a game of mental gymnastics and become a managerial contortionist to get things done.
No to contortionism! Yes to working together, understanding people’s values, communication styles and priorities.
It's not that hard right - just some common decency :)
The only way I ever broke free from managing up was to become the leader and even then it becomes a case of constantly managing expectations of senior leadership or clients
Yes, I don't think you ever necessarily escape it completely. But the constant finessing and walking on eggshells shouldn't outweigh the ability to do your job on a somewhat consistent basis.
I wonder if my desire to avoid being micro-managed has sometimes translated back into managing up to get them away from me…?
It could certainly be part of it. And if you have a situation where your boss or organization is not totally dysfunctional, managing up becomes a bit more manageable. It's when you have really toxic workplace where it's pretty much impossible to effectively manage up without losing your mind.
Thanks for this alternative way of looking at managing up Bette. There is no doubt in my mind and based on my experience that managing up is also being aware of the human dynamics at play. Even in a positive, non toxic workplace, where managers care, there are decisions being made by others and it’s important to be aware of those dynamics. Whether it’s to get work done, propose new ways of doing things, business cases and of course career advancement.
I don’t disagree with that, Michelle. You do have to recognize that sometimes there are things at play outside your boss’s control, and no amount of “managing up” is going to change that. I think the issue is that the term has become synonymous with the idea of turning a bad situation into something more positive. But the lower you are in the organization, the less political capital you have. Managing up becomes really difficult when you have nothing to offer in return—or when your boss doesn’t respect your position. In that case, there’s not much “managing” you can actually do.
I’m not a fan of managing up. More than once I’ve been ask to “mentor” a troubled boss. It’s an unfair situation.
Exactly, it doesn’t make sense. Why should it be the employee’s job to teach the boss how to do their job? They’re not getting paid for that. If the employee has to show the boss how it’s done, why isn’t that employee in charge? It’s like blaming the victim.
I learned this lesson about Jenga in the workplace in a previous church where the toxic system would not budge. I have been much happier since leaving for another position (nearly 20 years ago). Thanks, Bette!
Sounds like you've probably brought it some stability though even through those changes.
Churches definitely aren't immune to the dysfunction are they Hans! Glad you were able to get out. Have you been at your current church since then?
Yes. The church itself has changed over about 3 times in that span, however :)
Happy Monday, my friend
Managing up' in toxic workplaces = doing your job + your boss’s job + their emotional labor - all unpaid.
I remember in this one role, I kept a secret Slack channel with peers just to share basic operational updates our manager withheld. The absurdity of employees creating shadow systems to compensate for leadership failures should be a five alarm organizational warning.
We are not amateur therapist lol
Having to be subversive to get the job done is great incentive to build an escape tunnel
Yes, that feeling of control can definitely be a huge motivator for people to get out.
Exactly David.
Sometimes the best solutions come from thinking outside the box… or in this case, digging under it.
The escape from Alcatraz comes to mind! 😂